Well that didn’t take long

| 371 Comments

The Board of Regents met to hear Gonzalez’s appeal this morning. It’s worth noting that they rarely take a differing view on tenure decisions from the tenure committee itself. So sorry Tara, you got it wrong… the decision is already out, and it’s not a shocker:

The Iowa Board of Regents has denied Guillermo Gonzales’, associate professor of physics and astronomy, appeal for tenure. After a private deliberation, the Board voted down the appeal which has already been denied by Iowa State University and ISU President Gregory Geoffroy.

No details at this point. But look for the Discovery Institute Spin Room to start kvetching at any moment, if they haven’t already. At least Casey Luskin will have something to whine about besides his inability to figure out internet image copyright stuff. Might I suggest that he just pretend that Gonzalez was actually thrice denied tenure– once by the tenure board, once by the Preznident, and once by the Board of Regents– for maximum martyrhood?

It’s practically Biblical.

Edit in: A more detailed news release can be found here

371 Comments

[quote]It’s practically Biblical. [/quote]

I think I heard a rooster crow…

Too bad, the Regents made an “Intelligent Designed” decision!

‘Gonzalez called the vote a “major blow to academic freedom.”

“If academic freedom doesn’t defend the professor with minority viewpoints, what good is it?” he said.’

Academic freedom? I thought this was a tenure appeal. So what’s he suggesting here? That academic freedom only comes with tenure? AFAIK he’s still a faculty member at ISU, so does he have no academic freedom now? Or is it that professors with “minority viewpoints” must be granted tenure automatically?

Why doesn’t he just go to Liberty U and be done with it, or is he going to pull a Dembski and forever seek that elusive brass ring of respectability and legitimacy?

Just follow the money and this decision falls right into line.

Big science is a trillion dollar business world wide and certainly in the U.S. is controlled by the evolutionary jihadist element regularly posting here.

Anyone who cannot properly execute the darwin goose-step, shout heil darwin, and repeat by memory the latest and most blasphemous version of the humanist manifesto (it’s better to be an actual signatory of course) is certainly on the hit list of the NCSE and their allies.

No university held hostage by the evolutionary SS could possibly place anyone or anything above the taxpayer largess they receive in grant funds, so no other decision was possible.

It’s difficult to imagine that a hostile workplace suit will not be pursued as a civil action given the trove of emails and other evidence. But perhaps this result can still be dubbed into the Expelled movie.

Money, greed, power, political intrigue, special interests, secular humanism…it’s a lot to contend with, but then there’s always the truth…it just takes a while to work out.

The ink isn’t dry yet but Casey Luskin is already chastizing ISU on the DI site for failure to recognize Gonzalez as “… an outstanding scientist who is a leader in his field…” Luskin concluded. “Instead, they caved in to political pressure and threw academic freedom to the wind.” How sad these ID people are.

I wish real life was as fun as the troll Keith believes it is. We evil evolutionists don’t even get to wear cowels. :(

David:

The ink isn’t dry yet but Casey Luskin is already chastizing ISU on the DI site for failure to recognize Gonzalez as “… an outstanding scientist who is a leader in his field…”

Delusions of adequacy…

They’ve denied his due process rights throughout this entire appeal,” Luskin continued.

Since there are no provisions in the United States Constitution for “due process rights” in a tenure dispute at a university are we to assume Luskin is as dumb about the law as he is about science. Or is Luskin lying again to advance his cause?

I can’t tell anymore. I used to think Luskin was a clever propagandist, recelty I’ve come to the conclusion that Luskin is simply stupid.

Well, of course we already know that the only relevant criterion to the DI (and to our new troll) is ideological purity. Praise Jeezus, and it simply does not matter how incompetent you are or how totally you fail to accomplish a single one of your (known, published, required) career goals. You are being discriminated against for your religion.

So specifically, what doesn’t matter IF AND ONLY IF you wrap yourself in Jeezus, includes publications, funding, teaching, and community service. The lack of any of which deservedly disqualifies you on the merits if you absent-mindedly left your Jeezus at home.

It’s really a shame that someone as initially promising as Gonzalez couldn’t be bothered to do any science, but the negative correlation we’ve now seen between “finding ID” and doing honest work suggests this is far more than coincidence.

So Casey Luskin (and our resident but repetitive troll) may have a point. If it was religious faith that caused this handful of formerly productive scientists to abandon their duties, then their faith does come into play when considering their scientific merits. Creationism seems to be a very specific cure for scientific merit.

But I don’t worry too much about Gonzalez’ future. It may be nonexistent at Iowa State, but his newly-found incompetence should incite a bidding war on the part of the Bob Jones, Liberty U, BIOLA, etc. crowd. After all, they would not WANT him adding to the store of human knowledge; knowledge is their committed enemy.

Keith Eaton:

Just follow the money and this decision falls right into line.

Big science is a trillion dollar business world wide and certainly in the U.S. is controlled by the evolutionary jihadist element regularly posting here.

Anyone who cannot properly execute the darwin goose-step, shout heil darwin, and repeat by memory the latest and most blasphemous version of the humanist manifesto (it’s better to be an actual signatory of course) is certainly on the hit list of the NCSE and their allies.

No university held hostage by the evolutionary SS could possibly place anyone or anything above the taxpayer largess they receive in grant funds, so no other decision was possible.

It’s difficult to imagine that a hostile workplace suit will not be pursued as a civil action given the trove of emails and other evidence. But perhaps this result can still be dubbed into the Expelled movie.

Money, greed, power, political intrigue, special interests, secular humanism…it’s a lot to contend with, but then there’s always the truth…it just takes a while to work out.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Heeheehee.…

Oh, man, tears! I haven’t laughed this hard since I watched that L Ron Hubbard interview!

Man, you should go into comedy. Seriously.

my irony mete just broke

“They’ve denied his due process rights throughout this entire appeal,”

isn’t the appeal process (by definition/ univ charter) due process?

Venus Mousetrap:

We evil evolutionists don’t even get to wear cowels. :(

I’ve been looking for a lab coat with a Holstein cow pattern, though.

I look lousy in a cowl.

What I want to know is, where do I get in on this “big money” I keep hearing about? I mean, I do Lord Darwin’s evil bidding, sacrificing evangelical babies with a rusty garden trowel (which rhymes with cowl) every third new moon and deflowering underage chimpanzees, yet I’m still earning a pittance. It’s not fair. I’m just as evil as the next scientist!

Gonzales will get himself a cushy tenured position at Liberty or Bob Jones and never again have to get his hands dirty with research, but he’s EXPELLED? I don’t have a Luskin to cry rivers of tears when one of the primers I design and pay for all by myself doesn’t work. Who weeps for the hours I spend on fruitless attempts at amplification? Whose going to offer me a job if I fail to the extent that Gonzales fails while I’m attempting to actually do science?

Keith, old buddy old pal! How’ve you been? It’s been ages! So long as you’re here demonizing higher education, think you could answer a few questions for me? You promised Stacy S. over a week ago to do so, but when I asked, you seemed to suggest that I wasn’t a Christian (to remind you, Keith, I’m Roman Catholic), among other insults to myself and practicing scientists the world over. I’ve even added a new question for you, since you seem to be afraid of answering the original ones:

Nigel D:

.…

What, to your mind, is the scientific theory of ID?

Do you agree with Behe that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming?

Do you agree with Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old?

Do you agree with Behe that much of the diversity we observe in nature is due to evolution? (He just claims that it cannot all be due to natural processes).

If there is a qualitative difference [between micro- and macro- evolution], by what mechanism is microevolution prevented from becoming macroevolution in time? Place your answer in the context of the source that you quoted which describes macroevolution as “consisting of extended microevolution”?

And a fresh question for you:

Jackelope King:

Since you seem to be interested in academic freedom and open discussion, do you agree or disagree with the Texas Education Agency’s politically-motivated attacks against and firing of Christine Comer? If you’re not familiar with the specifics, you can find a fair summary of it in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/u[…]olution.html

When can we expect you to cry foul on Christine Comer’s behalf?

I’m looking forward to your responses, Keith.

And back on topic, what is the likelihood that Gonzales will try to take this to court? My familiarity with law in this area is nil, but it looks Gonzales essentially met zero of the normal benchmarks for receiving tenure. Would he even have a leg to stand on, or is this simply more flailing and screaming on the DI’s part?

David: The ink isn’t dry yet but Casey Luskin is already chastizing ISU on the DI site for failure to recognize Gonzalez as “… an outstanding scientist who is a leader in his field…”

Does Casey mention what “field” Gonzalez is “outstanding” in? Because it sure as hell isn’t astronomy.

(hugging knees, rocking back and forth, eyes closed) donotfeedthetrolldonotfeedthetrolldonotfeedthetroll…

Didn’t his track record pretty much prove Gonzalez was what the Texans call “all hat and no cowboy”? Kinda like the -mmff! (see above).

Another quick (mostly) on-topic question: I know that the tenure track at a university in a science department puts a premium on peer-reviewed papers and grant money, but how does the tenure review process normally look at non-peer-reviewed books and the like?

I ask because I’m unsure of how much of a discrepancy there is between humanities departments (where it seems like writing books is more favored) and science departments (where peer-reviewed work that brings in grant money is more valued).

In the fundie creobot mind, apparently “They’ve denied his due process rights” = “He didn’t get his way”.

Damn the facts, full BS ahead!

As far as I am concerned complete academic freedom only occurs once tenure is granted. I know that the AAUP attempts to provide untenured faculty with some rights, but in practice…

Just follow the money and this decision falls right into line

Duh. Failure to bring in grant money is one of the primary reasons Gonzalez was denied tenure. It’s one of the basic requirements and he didn’t get it done. Do you even inform yourself of the facts before you post your screeds (rhetorical question, it’s obvious you do not)?

Why does Keith get to keep coming back and doing this over and over again?

Keith wrote:

“Anyone who cannot properly execute the darwin goose-step, shout heil darwin, and repeat by memory the latest and most blasphemous version of the humanist manifesto (it’s better to be an actual signatory of course) is certainly on the hit list of the NCSE and their allies.”

Keith, why would an astronomer have to “execute the darwin goose-step”? Do physicists and chemists and mathematicians have to sign a pledge as well? In fact, is there any university where you have to sign a pledge to conform to the mojority religious view in order to join? Is it ISU? Can you say projection?

Jackelope King: You promised Stacy S. over a week ago to do so, but when I asked, you seemed to suggest that I wasn’t a Christian (to remind you, Keith, I’m Roman Catholic), among other insults to myself and practicing scientists the world over.

It’s likely that Keith will simply respond that you aren’t a “real Christian”. Such is the thinking of the hardcore ID-creationists: they apply their “you’re with us or against us” mentality to everyone. In their minds, anything less than strict adherence to their ideology equates with atheism - just look at how they treated church-going folk who opposed them in Dover, PA. It wasn’t pretty.

And back on topic, what is the likelihood that Gonzales will try to take this to court? My familiarity with law in this area is nil, but it looks Gonzales essentially met zero of the normal benchmarks for receiving tenure. Would he even have a leg to stand on, or is this simply more flailing and screaming on the DI’s part?

I think the likelihood this will ever go to court is essentially nil. The Disco Institute isn’t interested in trying to actually resolve anything - all they want to do is, as you say, flail and scream. They will squawk and make lots of noise so they can continue to push ‘the controversy’ in public and raise funds from their donors. It’s all part of their little money-making machine, in my opinion; and apparently, business is pretty good.

David Stanton said:

In fact, is there any university where you have to sign a pledge to conform to the mojority religious view in order to join? Is it ISU? Can you say projection?

Actually, doesn’t at least one of the fundy univs. (Liberty?) require you to sign the a “pledge to conform to the mojority (sic) religious view”? That’s indeed an interesting example of projection!

You don’t suppose that the main reason why Mr Gonzalez’s appeal for tenure was turned down for a second time because he hasn’t done anything scientifically notable since he suggested the “Habitability Zone” hypothesis?

NGL

I haven’t laughed this hard since I watched that L Ron Hubbard interview! Man, you should go into comedy. Seriously.

Yebbut, L. Ron didn’t actually believe his own BS - did he ?

Steve

L. Ron didn’t actually believe his own BS - did he

Hubbard is on record saying things like the way to get rich is to start your own religion.

Steve :

NGL

I haven’t laughed this hard since I watched that L Ron Hubbard interview! Man, you should go into comedy. Seriously.

Yebbut, L. Ron didn’t actually believe his own BS - did he ?

Steve

Only the parts that concerned profits, manipulating bookstores to rocket him to the Top 10 bestsellers list, and potential world domination.

The rest is just bullcrap.

I mean, honestly, alien torture chambers that looked like movie theaters, and spaceships that looked like Boeing 747s?

And clams…Don’t forget the CLAMS, man!

Wikipedia quote “Hubbard said that the galactic ruler Xenu transported his victims to Earth in interstellar space planes which looked exactly like Douglas DC-8s.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

Jackelope King:

I ask because I’m unsure of how much of a discrepancy there is between humanities departments (where it seems like writing books is more favored) and science departments (where peer-reviewed work that brings in grant money is more valued).

In most science departments, peer-reviewed work and grant money are ALL that matters.

Lee H:

In most science departments, peer-reviewed work and grant money are ALL that matters.

“A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students.”
John Ciardi

The performance art piece that is ‘Keith Eaton’ is typing words indicating displeasure that folk are saying mean things about Duane Gish, the same ‘Keith Eaton’ construct that burst into this thread with:

Anyone who cannot properly execute the darwin goose-step, shout heil darwin, and repeat by memory the latest and most blasphemous version of the humanist manifesto (it’s better to be an actual signatory of course) is certainly on the hit list of the NCSE and their allies.

The fabric of the space-time-irony continuum groans. Nice work, whoever the artist behind ‘Keith Eaton’ is. Such sustained simulation of barking madness can’t be easy. No doubt we’ll soon be seeing ‘Keith Eaton’ turn up on YouTube in a video showing the demented marionnette typing while the puppeteer/performance artist pulls his strings.

It is a good thing ‘Keith Eaton’ isn’t a real human being, because that level of arrogance, ignorance and anger would be very dangerous in a flesh and blood being. Fortunately we can laugh like kids watching Punch and Judy, with ‘Keith Eaton’ artistic construct playing both parts.

“The performance art piece that is ‘Keith Eaton’ …” This actually makes the most sense. When I was in college many years ago a soap-box evangelist came to my campus and started calling coeds “whores” as they arrived at the dining hall. The student body spent the lunch hour engaging this nutcase (including theology students, who cleaned his clock on all things biblical). He was so ridiculous we finally concluded that he was a street performer hired in secret by the Dean’s office to provide a few hour’s distraction from the stress of final exams.

Outside of a psychiatric hospital, that’s the only place I’ve heard such delusion.

WW. H. Heydt:

Mark E. Witt: (provisional founding council member) Intelligent Design, Institute of Theory New Haven, CT 06437

So…what IS the the Theory of Intelligent design?

To paraphrase the Discovery Institute…

“Biology of biological systems is too complicated for the pathetically puny minds of us, pathetically puny mortals, to ever comprehend, ergo, GODDESIGNERDIDIT.”

Addendum

“We know that GODDESIGNERDIDIT isn’t actually a scientific theory, so we’re working on a grass-roots campaign with our political cronies that will screw up the legal definitions of science in a weird, and grotesquely byzantine plot to stroke our egos please God.

KL:

He was so ridiculous we finally concluded that he was a street performer hired in secret by the Dean’s office to provide a few hour’s distraction from the stress of final exams.

We sometimes have some like that around here. Locally, at least, those people are sincerely deluded.

(Our deans don’t have the spare $$. :-))

David B. Benson:

KL:

He was so ridiculous we finally concluded that he was a street performer hired in secret by the Dean’s office to provide a few hour’s distraction from the stress of final exams.

We sometimes have some like that around here. Locally, at least, those people are sincerely deluded.

(Our deans don’t have the spare $$. :-))

Sounds like “Brother” Jed Smock, who, alas, is deadly serious. I remember him from more than one university.

http://www.brojed.org/

dpr (Yes a Christian (ELCA persuasion), but not one of “them”!)

I am talking with someone about religion and evolution, and I used this argument:

Now, I promised I’ll come back to your claim that the “At the basis of Dawkins’ argument is that all who accept the notion of God are being irrational and hence anti-intellectual.” I actually doubt it’s the base, but let me draw a parallel with something you said yourself.

It’s your argument against evolution based on second law of thermodynamics. This is one of the arguments known as “silver bullets”. The common belief is that evolutionary biology, hit with one of these supposedly unanswerable questions, staggers and collapses dead. However, I’d like to explore this notion a bit further by means of simple sylogism.

Supposition: There is a simple argument that proves evolution to be impossible. This is how I take your claim.

Fact: People work on evolution despite the existence of this simple disproval. I think you will agree with me on this point.

Conclusion: Those people are either not aware of the argument, or they are willingly ignoring it. If we assume the supposition to be true, as we must, since it’s the supposition of our sylogism, this conclusion is unavoidable. Either you don’t know the argument, or you do, and don’t pay heed to it. Not knowing a major argument that proves all your effort to be naught is pure ignorance without an excuse. On the other hand, knowing such an argument and pretending you don’t is dishonesty. Therefore:

Conclusion 2: If there exists a simple argument that proves evolution to be impossible, then everyone who believes in evolution is either ignorant or dishonest.

I thought about this argument a lot while waiting for your answer to my last post, and I can’t see anything wrong with it.

The whole exchange is on

http://www.xanga.com/kenedwards5/59[…]ank-god.html

I am interested in your thoughts.

Do mention that if the 2nd law of thermodynamics did prohibit evolution from occurring, it would also prohibit regeneration and, more importantly, reproduction from occurring.

Stanton Wrote:

Do mention that if the 2nd law of thermodynamics did prohibit evolution from occurring, it would also prohibit regeneration and, more importantly, reproduction from occurring.

Excellent point, but be prepared for the bait-and-switch. Specifically that 2LOT supposedly prohibits abiogenesis, and/or the “macroevolution” events for which they increasingly refuse to specify even the basic whats and whens of what they think (or what their audience to think) occurred instead.

Yes its just a matter of 100 years of such attempts to demonstrate abiogenesis without a scintilla of success which is strange because there are no physical laws that resist such.

I see the troll has gone the way of all trolls - in delusion claiming victory all the way back to his dimly lit dungeon. Maybe now is the time to comment on this.

This is perhaps the only reasonable question that the troll raised, in that scientists often note that design arguments are infertile, and here we have a science to be that is seemingly so.

But put in context it is a ridiculous claim. For a similar endeavor, it is “just a matter of 100 years of such attempts to demonstrate” that relativity and quantum mechanics are fully combinable in for example a full quantum theory of gravitation “without a scintilla of success which is strange because there are no physical laws that resist such”.

The truth is that there have been progress and above all fertile work in these subjects all along. And the same goes for evolutionary history, geological history and biochemistry, which constitutes large parts of what needs to be combined into abiogenesis.

Another context that puts the claim as ridiculous is that abiogenesis is a less likely and unique event for a biosphere, while evolution is an ongoing process where for example speciation happens all the time. Future statistics and properties of biospheres that have seen abiogenesis seems an attainable goal with current or near future astrophysics, so perhaps that situation will be alleviated somewhat. But not at all equating the observability.

I am talking with someone about religion and evolution, and I used this argument:

Yep. Now add the sheer number of scientists all of whom would have to be in on it, over the last century and a half, from lots of different countries and cultures, and belonging to lots of different religions. Then add the fact that the employers (and students, for some of them) of all those people didn’t seem to notice the problem, either.

Henry

2LOT and life, evolution … : read

Into the Cool

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Ethan Rop published on February 7, 2008 12:29 PM.

Guillermo Gonzalez tenure review goes to the Board of Regents today was the previous entry in this blog.

Reconstruction of Ancestral Proteins is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter