Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The religification of science

  1. May 25, 2007 #1
    I think this is a great example of the religification of science. It is the claim of some scientist in response to hearing that a pro-ID scientist was denied tenure at Iowa State University:

    When one looks into the background of this pro-ID scientist, one sees that he has published many peer reviewed papers (not on ID), so he understands science perfectly well. It then follows that above quote demonstrates a distorted, religious view of science.

    I think people who turn science into a religion may believe that they are supporting science, but are actually damaging it. Luckily in Europe(which is where i live), science seems to be less infected with such religious ideas, but of course this may change in the future, since religions can quickly spread.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 25, 2007 #2
    Individual Universities can deny application to anyone. A college could deny the application of a person who thinks that the Holocaust never happened if they choose to without jeopardizing anything.

    Science is not a democracy. Science is not about letting everyone have their own say about their personal speculation. Science is about what the evidence says.
     
  4. May 25, 2007 #3
    The hypothesis: "He has established that he does not understand the scientific process."
    The evidence: When one looks into the background of this pro-ID scientist, one sees that he has published many peer reviewed papers (not on ID).
    The science: Hypothesis rejected.
     
  5. May 25, 2007 #4
    So?

    A person who does not use scientific methodology has no reason to claim equal rights with one who do. Just because one were successful in the past does not mean that you can get away with all sorts of unscientific behavior in the present.
     
  6. May 25, 2007 #5

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Your link is from the inventors of intelligent design - "the Discovery Institute" and is highly biased & slanted. I wouldn't believe too much of what they say.

    EDIT:I knew it, Guillermo Gonzalez is Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and published a book about intelligent design - The priveleged planet. "In 2004 he co-authored The Privileged Planet: How Our Place In The Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery with Jay W. Richards." :yuck:

    He's published openly on ID and it has tarnished the University's reputation. In this case, I would agree that they are within their rights to deny tenure. Someone like Moonbear that works for a Universty could probably explain the process better.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2007
  7. May 25, 2007 #6
    I must complain that this thread on a sensitive issue is being hijacked. Please contain your remarks to the thesis of the OP.
     
  8. May 25, 2007 #7

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Hijacked by whom and how?
     
  9. May 25, 2007 #8

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Considering the original post contains a word that doesn't exist then its open to interpretation. I don't think that science is becoming dogmatic. If what Evo has said about the guy is true then I think the comments made about him were founded. I'm glad to see scientists standing up for themselves for once as well.
     
  10. May 25, 2007 #9
    The OP objects to this statement:
    "He has established that he does not understand the scientific process."
    Specifically. It is his point. He provides evidence against it. Either agree with him, or provide contradictory evidence, or disprove his evidence. But to simply paint the professor with the brush of ID is to prove the OP's larger point. Can you say that Professor Hoyle did not understand the scientific process?

    I hope no one here holds both of the following views at the same time:
    1. ID is not falsifiable and therefor is not science.
    2. ID is false and therefor is bad science.
     
  11. May 25, 2007 #10
    Anyway, intelligent design is not falsifiable and would therefore not be science in the Popperian philosophy.

    edit:

    Beaten by the second :yuck:
     
  12. May 25, 2007 #11
    Besides ID, are there any other views outside the realm of science that you would forbid to professors of science?
     
  13. May 25, 2007 #12

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Robert Parks is from Maryland, not Iowa (1675 kilometers apart, for those of you in Europe). Search far and wide enough and you will be able to find someone saying something stupid about anything.

    The cited source, "evolutionnews.org" is none other than the Discovery Institute in disguise. Hardly unbiased.

    Gonzalez has not received any significant grants or published any significant papers while at Iowa State. He has tarnished the university's reputation. Why should he be granted tenure?
     
  14. May 25, 2007 #13

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The The Chronicle of Higher Education said of Gonzalez and the Discovery Institute's claims of discrimination "At first glance, it seems like a clear-cut case of discrimination ... But a closer look at Mr. Gonzalez's case raises some questions about his recent scholarship and whether he has lived up to his early promise." The Chronicle observed that Gonzalez had no major grants during his seven years at ISU, had published no significant research during that time and had only one graduate student finish a dissertation.

    http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/05/2007052103n.htm

    "I believe that I fully met the requirements for tenure at ISU," said Gonzalez,[4] to which intelligent design critic PZ Myers said "Complaining that one met all the requirements is like proposing marriage, getting turned down, and then protesting that one has a good job, a nice apartment, and excellent personal hygiene. That may be true, but it's irrelevant."[5]. Gonzalez is currently appealing the decision. The University has issued a FAQ concerning the situation saying that "The consensus of the tenured department faculty, the department chair, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and the executive vice president and provost was that tenure should not be granted. Based on recommendations against granting tenure and promotion at every prior level of review, and his own review of the record, President Gregory Geoffroy notified Gonzalez in April that he would not be granted tenure and promotion to associate professor."[6] The Discovery Institute encouraged their followers to call and email the ISU president, Gregory Geoffroy, to pressure him in to reversing the decision, resulting in over 500 messages.[3]

    http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/2007/may/tenureFAQ.shtml
     
  15. May 25, 2007 #14
    The relevant quote comes from nature (see here).

    Thats the point the ID chaps are trying to make: this could be a case of ideological/religious discrimination. The church used to have a monopoly on that.
     
  16. May 25, 2007 #15

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Turns out that's not the reason for his denial of tenure, he failed to meet basic tenure criteria, see my post above.
     
  17. May 25, 2007 #16

    G01

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I honestly think that this guy's tenure rejection has nothing to do with his belief in intelligent design. It seems to me this guy isn't getting tenure because he didn't do his job. He didn't publish, he only had one graduate student finish a dissertation, and had no major grants.

    Sure, you can say in the past he had a lot of publications.....but that's like getting a job and not doing any work and then telling your boss he can't fire you because you did a lot of work in your previous job. It doesn't work like that.

    ID proponent or not...........this man does not deserve tenure.
     
  18. May 25, 2007 #17

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    The "relevant quote" is from someone over 1600 kilometers away. Not very relevant. The relevant facts are that Gonzalez has not brought in any significant research projects to ISU, has only one graduate student at ISU, has not made any significant publications while at ISU, and has received negative recommendations at every annual review at ISU.

    Tenure is not a right; it has to be earned. Tenure spots are a scarce resource.
     
  19. May 25, 2007 #18
    Is this thread about the denial of tenure, or is it about Professor Parks' reaction to it?
     
  20. May 25, 2007 #19

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Looks to me it's about his denial of tenure. That's what the link the OP posted is ranting about.

    Since it's already been shown that the biased rant from the Discovery Institute is baseless, I guess this thread should be locked since the OP issue has been shown to be baseless?
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2007
  21. May 25, 2007 #20

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    How are the remarks of someone in a completely different university and a completely different field relevant? Give me any controversial subject and I can find someone important who said something stupid about that subject.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The religification of science
  1. Science (Replies: 4)

Loading...