Hector Avalos sent me his response to the Discovery Institute’s ‘shocking’ revelation that people had been discussing Guillermo Gonzalez’s affiliation with Intelligent Design creationism before they denied him tenure. It’s a classic pointless objection: of course they were, and of course his openly expressed, unscientific beliefs which were stated as a representative of ISU were a serious consideration. It does not speak well of the Discovery Institute that they had to cobble together quote-mines from the email to try and make a non-case for a non-issue.
THE DI AND THE SMOKING GUN THAT WASN’T
Dr. Hector
Avalos, Iowa State UniversityI needed to look
no further than the following post in Evolution News and Views to
see clearly how the Discovery Institute misleads readers by selectively quoting
the supposed smoking gun e-mails from ISU. I know because, in this case, they
are quoting e-mails of mine.The DI held a
news conference on December 3 in Des Moines that revealed—drum roll, please—scientists
do not like other scientists portraying non-science as science. And from this
mass of e-mails they only managed to find this supposed inconsistency in my
position.Hector Avalos, outspoken atheist Professor of
Religion at ISU: Then:
In the summer of 2005, Avalos e-mails ISU faculty, inviting them to sign a
statement calling on "all faculty members to … reject efforts to portray
Intelligent Design as science" because of the "negative impact"
due to the fact that "Intelligent Design … has now established a presence
… at Iowa State University." Guillermo Gonzalez, being the only well-known
ID proponent who has "established a presence" at ISU, is the
undeniable target of such a statement. Later: Avalos asserts publicly in the ISU
Daily,
"The statement we wrote was in no way targeted specifically at
Gonzalez."First,
they are wrong about Gonzalez being the ONLY one who had established a
“well-known” ID presence at ISU. Another advocate of ID at ISU is Thomas
Ingebritsen, who was featured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal in the fall of 2005, and who has been
open about his support for ID. He was the one actually teaching a course that
was quite favorable to ID.The
DI scribes should know this because they said it themselves in a post dated
December 13, 2005:On the hand, Dr. Tom Ingebritsen, associate
professor of genetics in Iowa State’s The Department of Genetics, Development
and Cell Biology (GDCB) has been teaching a course called "God and
Science" for the past five years that presents intelligent design in at
least a more neutral, if not favorable, light.Do the math—
“for the past five years” would mean Ingebritsen was known to be advocating ID
at ISU in 2000 and BEFORE Dr. Gonzalez arrived at ISU in 2001.Second, the DI
does not tell readers how it is combining sentences from different sections of
a document in order create a fragmented syntax that appears to target Gonzalez,
if that means his tenure status. Here is the three original sentences, snippets
of which were recombined by the DI:1. Intelligent Design has become a significant
issue in science education, and it has now established a presence, even if minimal, at Iowa State
University.2. Accordingly, if you are concerned about the negative impact of Intelligent Design on the integrity of
science and on our university, please consider signing the "Statement on
Intelligent Design by Iowa State University Faculty" below.3. We, therefore, urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university
of "science and technology," convey to students and the general
public the importance of methodological naturalism in science, and reject
efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.In
none of those sentences, nor anywhere in the whole document, is Dr. Gonzalez
named. At that time our statement began to circulate, Dr. Gonzalez was not
well-known as an ID advocate to most faculty even at ISU, but only to the few
of us who studied ID or those in his department. The nature of “the presence at
ISU” was left unspecified in order not to draw attention specifically to Dr.
Gonzalez.It
was Dr. Gonzalez who subsequently made his name well-known by identifying
himself very publicly as the supposed specific target of that faculty
statement. He made himself the issue at a time we were trying to make ID the
issue as our Statement plainly states.Had
he kept quiet, I doubt many faculty outside of his own department would have
even known who was advocating ID at ISU. I did not get e-mails wondering “who
is the presence?” Or “what does presence mean?”Note
that in sentence #2 we express our worry about the impact of ID on the
integrity of science and on our university. We said we wanted to educate the
public. Now that is what the faculty cared about. The DI leaves that all that
out of its recombined syntax.Third,
there is no inconsistency in my position quoted: “The statement…was in no way
targeted specifically at Gonzalez.”Let’s
read the beginning of our faculty statement again: “We, the undersigned faculty
members at Iowa State University, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent
Design as a scientific endeavor.”The
Statement does not say “we reject Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez” or “we reject Dr.
Gonzalez’s tenure.” It is ID we reject, and so how is that specifically
targeting Dr. Gonzalez unless Dr. Gonzalez embodies the whole of the ID
movement?Of
course what the DI did not reveal is my fuller account of the rationale for
that faculty statement, which eventually was signed by over 130 faculty members
at ISU, and about 400 faculty members in Iowa’s three regent’s universities.
In an e-mail (dated 6-3-07) I submitted as part of the open records request,
and presumably also obtained by the Discovery Institute, I presented the
following more complete rationale to Dr. John Hauptman, a professor in Dr.
Gonzalez’s own department:I
cannot speak for every signatory, but I can tell you my motives had as much or
more to do with what was going outside of Iowa, on the national scene, than what was
going on here.First, in my mind, was the fact that the Discovery Institute had
been using ISU’s name when trying to introduce ID into school curricula in
Texas, among other states for years.One case in point is the 2003 textbook hearings in Austin, Texas
in which William Dembski, the most prominent advocate of ID, used the ID
research taking place at ISU to justify the introduction of ID into school
textbooks.See, for example, this extract from p. 34 of Dembski’s portfolio
as an expert witness in such hearings:"Cosmological Fine-Tuning and Anthropic Coincidences.
Although this is a well worn area of study, there are some new developments
here that derive from a specifically design-theoretic perspective. Guillermo
Gonzalez, assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Iowa State
University, and Jay Richards, a senior fellow with Seattle’s Discovery
Institute, have published The Privileged Planet in which they make a case for
planet earth as intelligently designed not only for life but also for
scientific discovery. In other words, they argue that our world is designed
to facilitate scientific discovery of its own design. This work has been featured
on the front cover of the October 2001 Scientific American. It connects
intelligent design in biology to intelligent design in cosmology."Second, in June, the Smithsonian Institute featured a movie based
on The Privileged Planet, in an event which was again meant to highlight how
research at Iowa State was validating ID.A third development was the Dover trial which was about to begin
in Pennsylvania in September of 2005. That is still the most significant
federal court case regarding ID.Fourth, President Bush had issued a statement on Monday, August 1
stating that he favored introduction of ID into science classes as a way of
teaching "both sides."Our petition began circulating on Tuesday, August 2, the day after
Bush’s statements, even though it had been drafter prior to that.Given all of these factors, I wanted to say that we, at ISU, did
not think ID was either a "new development" or science. Otherwise ID
advocates were using our silence to validate themselves, especially in states
where they wanted to introduce it into schools.As long as a lot of us were on record saying we did not think ID
was science, then Dr. Gonzalez’s work on ID was not so much the issue. His
tenure was not an issue. What we wanted to stop is the unchallenged use of
ISU’s name to validate ID.So, it was not at
all about Gonzalez’s tenure, but rather about the use of our university’s good
name to market ID. Gonzalez can say ID is science, but we can also say it’s
not.TALK ABOUT
FLIP FLOPSAnd lest we think
that the DI has no flip-flops of its own, let’s play the same game
with them, shall we?On the one
hand: Intelligent Design
is scientific, not religious.On the other
hand: Being against
intelligent design constitutes religious discriminationOn the one
hand: We want academic
freedom declare Intelligent Design to be science.On the other
hand: We will cry
viewpoint discrimination if someone expresses the opinion that ID is not
science.On the one
hand: We want scientists,
not judges or politicians, to define scienceOn the other
hand: If scientists do
not define ID as science, then we will take our
case to court and court politicians to achieve our ends.On the one
hand: ID advocates are
not creationistsOn the other
hand: “cdesign proponentsists”
(need we say more?)
HONESTY AND
SECRECYIn
general, the December 3 news conference was more of a bust than the DI
anticipated. And while the DI complains that newspapers who do not agree with
their position are tools of ISU (see Evolution News and Views, December 6, 2007), they forget that a
local pastor admitted to being a puppet of a DI fellow.Posted by Tim: 08/24/2005 :: Ministry News :: 1 comments on
002782Well, my arm was twisted. Rather than working hard on campus
ministry stuff, I was coerced into writting a letter to the editor of the D.M.
Register regarding the Intelligent Design debate. It went through a major revision after Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez himself advised me multiple
times as to what to say and what not to say. This one got his blessing.Hmm. Coerced? Arm
twisted? Others would call it hypocrisy and a blatant
attempt to hide the author’s true identity. Reminds one of the famous
Wedge Document that the DI secreted for a while. So much for open records and
truthfulness. So much for higher ethical standards that ID would supposedly
bring to our society.So,
let the DI explain why it withholds information of its own when quoting
those e-mails. Why not give the whole context so that people can make up their
minds? Why not quote the other side, and truly teach the controversy.
It never has before. Doesn’t stop them, though.
Discovery Institute – A Ninth Commandment-free zone.
bah, Christians are adept at cobbling together parts of different sentences to mean what they want. look at what happens whenever they quote the Bible.
Yeah, as expected….. The DI and quoting, a couple made in hell.
That’s some good work there. Bet it doesn’t show up on the darkside.
Hmmm,
Don’t give them any ideas, they’ll probably use that to prove that ID is not religious in nature.
Love the nested blockquotes.
Nested
By the time the D.I. have completed their edit,
I’m surprised Dr. Avalos knew that he’d said it;
I suppose that it, technically, wouldn’t be perjury,
Just Federal-Witness-Protection type surgery.
I also love the hypocrisy regarding Gonzalez and Ingebritsen at IU. They were, apparently, both using their position to advance ID, Dembski, etc., pointing to their positions there as “proof” that ID was an accepted part of science at IU. Gonzalez apparently going to the extent that he neglected his actual professional responsibilities and failed to meet the requirements for tenure. All of these actions have sullied IU’s reputation, the university has wrongly been listed as a supporter of ID, etc., and what are they doing? Attacking IU for discrimination. IU should be filing suit for defamation of character. ;o)
I don’t know what Gonzalez is so upset about. I’m sure there’s always room for one more cdesign proponentsist at Liberty University. He wouldn’t even have to publish anything peer-reviewed to get tenure there. Dredging up some ridiculous lawsuit seems to be enough. It’s the old “perniciously prosecute or perish” requirement.
dogmeatib: For clarification, we are talking about Iowa STATE (ISU), not Iowa (U of I – not IU)
As a former Iowegian, I can aver that there is no bigger insult to Iowa St University than to call it the University of Iowa (and vice versa).
Then there is UNI, the red-headed step-child.
Q: How can you tell when the DI is lying?
A: They create, I mean design, a press release.
They don’t want him at Liberty. ID & DI is all about the trojan horse: the only trojan they can talk about.
Captain, I think the convoy just took a direct hit.
Good on ya’, Dr. Avalos!
As a former Iowegian, I can aver that there is no bigger insult to Iowa St University than to call it the University of Iowa (and vice versa).
As an alum of ISU, the real university in the state, I can attest to this.
From Dr. Avalos’s 3 June email to Dr. Hauptman:
(Emphasis mine) Wait. What? “ID research”? Did one of those people actually come up with a hypothesis and test it?
Uh, what’s the tenure status of this Ingebritsen person?
If he’s been at Iowa State, and teaching ID, for at least eight years, that seriously subverts Gonzalez’s complaint about viewpoint discrimination.
And why hasn’t the ISU genetics department posted a Lehigh/Behe-type disclaimer about Ingebritsen’s, ahem, idiosyncrasies?
I’m concerned. The DI revealed their Black Knight and Brave Sir Robin way back at Dover; now they’ve cast their Dennis too. Might I suggest that Pharyngulites get some nominations in before all the good roles are gone?
I’m concerned. The DI revealed their Black Knight and Brave Sir Robin way back at Dover; now they’ve cast their Dennis too. Might I suggest that Pharyngulites get some nominations in before all the good roles are gone?
My reading of SciAm is intermittent at best, and my collection of back issues even skimpier, so this comes as news to me.
Did they do a story on pseudoscientific Americans?
Scientific American featured a cover story on Dr. Gonzalez’s concept
of the Galactic Habitable Zone in the October 2001 issue. This
is often touted as a discovery, but any reading of the history of
theology shows that this concept is already there in earlier form in Cicero (1 c. BCE) and in Paley’s Natural Theology (1805). You can see my essay on this on TalkReason
where I review the Privileged Planet: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Avalos.cfm.
SciAm has since distanced itself from the ID implications that were
not explicit in that article, but do appear in more evolved form in The Privileged Planet.
Dr. Hector Avalos (#20):
The period at the end of your link broke it; this one should work better.
Oh, and I’ve really enjoyed your books!
Another flipflop:
On the one hand, we want to be able to critique evolution based on the evidence of mechanism, or by demanding evidence of mechanism where it could not be expected to be found (not yet, anyway).
On the other hand, ID should be required to give no evidence for mechanism, since it’s not a “mechanical explanation” (that is to say, it is no explanation at all, so what’s the need for evidence?).
Which gets back to the flip-flops about ID being science, as ID doesn’t even wish to provide any scientific explanations.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
This “viewpoint discrimination” thing bothers be. It’s a bogus term, and ought to be rendered in scare-quotes (or Comic Sans, ha!). It’s a framing thing, and it reminds me of “pro-life” and other conservative talking points.
The thing is, science is viewpoint discrimination, and nobody should have to apologize about that. Science is how we discriminate viewpoints that adhere to reality from those that do not.
Pablo, MAJeff, you’re both wrong. That red-headed step child, UNI, is the Iowa University. Sorry, but them’s the facts, if by “facts” you mean “one UNI graduate’s completely biased opinion”
I’m so tired of people actually falling for the sales pitch.
Using “intelligent design” or even “ID” is simply giving in to their whole plan, which is to gloss over their delusions so it’s easier to sneak into science classes.
Just call it what we all know it is: creationism.
The Discovery Institute . . . what did they discover?
They discovered that the Judge in Kitzmiller v Dover had a brain. They discovered that nobody with a functioning brain believes the bogus non-science they put out. But, they keep going on and on.
Scooty – “Pablo, MAJeff, you’re both wrong. That red-headed step child, UNI, is the Iowa University.”
UNI grad here (class of ’90).
Did you know that back in the late 80s, there was a legislator who proposed changing the name of UNI to “Iowa University”? He thought that UNI gave it too much of a regionalized name. Of course, it is a pretty dumb idea (there is the University of Iowa, and Iowa University? Don’t tell the Nebraskans, they will never be able to figure it out (University of Nebraska goes by NU)).
Personally, I like the name UNI. For starters, it is the only UNI in the country (Northern Illinois is NIU – of course, national broadcasters still screw it up – and there is a North Idaho University, but that is also NIU)
The people responsible for Gonzales’ tenure denial can be found in one place: The Discovery Institute.
Look in the mirror, Luskin. This is your fault. Stop conning people with your bullshit.
I knew the pastor who wrote that letter. As far Honesty and Secrecy goes: Gonzalez may have scoured the letter of any colleague names (DI or ISU), but if you’ve ever talked with Tim or listened to a sermon by Tim, you know the final version of the letter was completely sincere.
There may have been arm twisting due to Tim having such a busy schedule, but not because he was asked to say something he didn’t mean.
http://www.theborseths.com/archives/002782.html
Still. Avalos’ point is fair, in that Gonzalez should have at least cosigned the letter, instead of conscripting a supporter.
Actually, it’s North Idaho College.
Ah, the good old days with Governor Braindead. Best moustache in the country.
I didn’t remember if it was Branstad or other random useless legislator.
all i really remember were constant fights with the board of regents over tuition hikes that were in excess of the inflation rate.
quote from #18 above:
“I’m concerned. The DI revealed their Black Knight and Brave Sir Robin way back at Dover; now they’ve cast their Dennis too. Might I suggest that Pharyngulites get some nominations in before all the good roles are gone?”
the logical place for defenders of science in this metaphor would be the French in Castle AAARGH – we have the ‘grail’, we are anassailable, and we hold them in general distain
Why, you’re not doing science at all! You’ve got two ‘alves of coconuts, an’ you’re bangin’ em together!
The Disinformation Institute: the Energizer Bunny of lying.
I would have thought that our merry band of pharyngulites would be odds-on favourites for the Knights Who Say ‘Ni’
Ni!
I was poking around the Templeton site, when -lo and behold- I found a re-print of the WSJ article Avalos mentions.
Here’s an interesting excerpt:
Yet another example of how ID destroys scientific inquiry.
Good post. It’s important to fact check and let nothing slide.
HJ
I love the way DI’s way with elipsis mirrors their entire investigative methodology. Recombinant sentences versus recombinant genes…? And then having no clue regarding the actual questions they need to answer.
“Uh, what’s the tenure status of this Ingebritsen person?
If he’s been at Iowa State, and teaching ID, for at least eight years, that seriously subverts Gonzalez’s complaint about viewpoint discrimination.
And why hasn’t the ISU genetics department posted a Lehigh/Behe-type disclaimer about Ingebritsen’s, ahem, idiosyncrasies?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 13, 2007 12:05 PM”
Dr. Ingebritsen is a tenured Associate Professor here at ISU. He arrived here in ~ 1988 at “mid-career”. My recollection is that he was hired with tenure (I started at ISU as an Assistant Professor in 1988), but I could be wrong. I believe (though again I could be mistaken) that Dr. Ingebritsen’s ID interests developed after he was hired by ISU. You’d have to ask my colleagues in the Department of Genetics, Development, and Cell Biology why they’ve chosen not to post a Lehigh/Behe type disclaimer (I am a member of the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology).
“DOCTOR” Avalos (#20) says: “Scientific American featured a cover story on Dr. Gonzalez’s concept
of the Galactic Habitable Zone in the October 2001 issue. This
is often touted as a discovery, but any reading of the history of
theology shows that this concept is already there in earlier form in Cicero (1 c. BCE) and in Paley’s Natural Theology (1805)….” blah blah blah
I don’t need to read anything more of yours to be able to tell that you haven’t yet discovered that nobody even knew what a “galaxy” really was until well into the 20th century.
But it’s kind of cute how you and your fellows-in-faith manage to mix politeness with stupidity. You all accomplish it with much flare and distinction.
I don’t need to read anything more of yours to be able to tell that you haven’t yet discovered that nobody even knew what a “galaxy” really was until well into the 20th century.
Wrong. The Galactic part is simply a variant of the zone of habitability
that was already there in Cicero or Paley. The concept is similar insofar as each of them thought we lived in an area of the cosmos that was best suited for habitation.
So “Galactic” may be an updating, but the concept is the same. Comprende?
BTW: You may also wish to check out my article on the Bible and Astronomy
in Mercury: The Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (1998)
where I also discuss fine tuning.
I think you misunderstood what was quoted.
Gonzalez wrote an article about how “special” our part of the universe is. While Paley and Cicero did not know what a galaxy was, nor that they (we) live in one, they did argue for the existence of God from the “specialness” of the observable world, that is, as a modified form of the argument from design.
Avalos’s essay is a critique that references these ancient arguments. If you follow the link, you will see that.
The argument from design is indeed really ancient; many theologians bring up how wonderful it is that we live in a world that is so conducive to our life; how we and other animals have body parts that work so well, and so on.
“Fire, ready, aim!”
And to carry through on the “habitable zone” argument: the fact that we live in areas of the world with breathable atmosphere — not unsuited high above it where we would suffocated, nor airtankless at the bottom of the ocean where we would drown, nor yet buried under tons of rock where we might simultaneously suffocate and be crushed (if not crisped by volcanic heat) — only proves God’s provision for our needs, as for those of the fish deep in the waters and birds high in the air (not vice versa).
Yes indeed, when we reverse cause and effect, and forget which came first (the environment or its occupants), Design sure looks plausible, doesn’t it, eh?
And to carry through on the “habitable zone” argument: the fact that we live in areas of the world with breathable atmosphere — not unsuited high above it where we would suffocated, nor airtankless at the bottom of the ocean where we would drown, nor yet buried under tons of rock where we might simultaneously suffocate and be crushed (if not crisped by volcanic heat)
Response:
Sure, as long as we remember that AIDS viruses, infantile paralysis,
wars, etc., were also made possible by those same conditions. So how do
we decide which ones of those millions of features that are equally
or more improbable, and which also required lots of preconditions
to be right, were the one “designed” and purposed by this superdesigner
(or supedesigners)?
The argument that Earh is ‘designed for life’ carried more weight when it was supposed that solar systems were very rare.