Village Journals
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Maltreatment of ID Proponents
?We did not create the heavens and the earth and everything between them just to play a game. If we wanted to play, we could have done so from what is already with us, if that is what we wanted to do. Instead, we hurl the truth against the falsehood to knock it out, and then the falsehood vanishes. Woe to you for what you utter!? -Quran 21:16-18
"We have given you the truth, but most of you hate the truth.? -Quran 43:78
Action Alert : How You Can Help Support Dr. Gonzalez And Stand Up For Academic Freedom:
?Here is what you can do to help Guillermo Gonzalez in his fight for academic freedom. The decision to deny his tenure is currently under appeal before the president of Iowa State University. You can call President Gregory L. Geoffroy at (515) 294-2042 or email him at [email protected] and let him know that you support Guillermo Gonzalez and his right to follow the evidence wherever it leads.? www.discovery.org)
Reports came out a few days ago that Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, a pro-ID astronomer with impressive professional and scientific credentials, has been denied tenure at Iowa State University www.discovery.org, www.wcfcourier.com www.midiowanews.com). The denial is unfair and questionable not only in light of the past maltreatment of ID proponents but also especially so in light of his credentials that far exceed the university?s minimum requirements for academic tenure. He wrote 68 peer-reviewed, scientific articles and co-authored a college-level astronomy textbook published by Cambridge University Press, led to the discovery of two exoplanets, was asked to serve as a referee for leading scientific publications, was a pioneer in formulating the galactic habitable zone concept (which he described in a cover article titled ?Refuges for Life in a Hostile Universe? in Scientific American in 2001 - atropos.as.arizona.edu), and his articles have been published in prominent journals such as Science, Nature, and Scientific American.
The university?s news release www.iastate.edu) states that Geoffroy has until June 6 to decide on Gonzalez's appeal. If you support The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery or the cosmological fine-tuning arguments in defense of design in the universe, please call or email President Gregory L. Geoffroy in support of the outstanding professional and scientific credentials of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez and his right to follow the evidence where it leads. This is an opportunity for design-sympathetic Muslims to do at least the bare minimum to support ID ? write at least 3-5 sentences in an email to Geoffroy. Sadly, the denial of tenure for Gonzalez is yet another extension of the long line of discrimination, harassment, and persecution against ID proponents who are scientists, professors, teachers, and students in academia. Many scientists, astronomers, and physicists uphold cosmological design as the best causal explanation for several cosmic ?coincidences? in everything from the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the fundamental physical constants, the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant for the universe not to runaway into an inflationary expansion that would have prevented the formation of stars and galaxies to the resonance levels in the carbon atom and the unique properties of hydrogen, oxygen, and water. Why should Gonzalez be singled out and denied tenure ? simply due to the fact that he is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, or due to fear that his tenure might give the impression that ISU is an ID school? This is unjust persecution against a man of solid scientific credentials.
The denial of tenure for Gonzalez is reminiscent of the persecution of Dr. Richard Sternberg in 2004 www.rsternberg.net). Sternberg, editor of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was illegitimately indicted, harassed, and accused at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History for publishing in August 2004, on allegedly creationist and religious grounds, Dr. Stephen Meyer?s scientific paper ?The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories? www.discovery.org). In the paper, Meyer argued that evolutionary theory cannot account for the origin of biological information necessary to build novel life forms (such as novelty that arose during the Cambrian Explosion) and that intelligent design offers an alternative causal explanation for the origin of information and the higher taxonomic categories of life. Darwinists demand pro-ID publications in peer-reviewed, scientific journals. Yet, when Meyer?s pro-ID paper was published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal, Darwinists sought to withdraw the paper by fabricating the lie that the editor (Sternberg) failed to meticulously adhere to the methodology of peer-review.
The United States House of Representatives Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources investigated Sternberg?s case and concluded in December 2006 in a report titled ?Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian?s Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution? www.souder.house.gov):
?The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg?s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. Moreover, the agency?s top officials?Secretary Lawrence Small and Deputy Secretary Sheila Burke?have shown themselves completely unwilling to rectify the wrongs that were done or even to genuinely investigate the wrongdoing. Most recently, Burke and Small have allowed NMNH officials to demote Dr. Sternberg to the position of Research Collaborator, despite past assurances from Burke that Dr. Sternberg was a ?Research Associate in good standing? and would be given ?full and fair consideration? for his request to renew his Research Associateship. 2 The failure of Small and Burke to take any action against such discrimination raises serious questions about the Smithsonian?s willingness to protect the free speech and civil rights of scientists who may hold dissenting views on topics such as biological evolution.?
The congressional report summarized the major findings of the investigation (emphasis removed from original):
- ?Officials at the Smithsonian?s National Museum of Natural History created a hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights.?
- ?In emails exchanged during August and September 2004, NMNH officials revealed their intent to use their government jobs to discriminate against scientists based on their outside activities regarding evolution.?
- ?The hostility toward Dr. Sternberg at the NMNH was reinforced by anti-religious and political motivations.?
- ?NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group on government time and using government emails to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternberg?s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him.?
- ?Secretary Small and Deputy Secretary Burke have exhibited a head-in-the-sand attitude toward wrongdoing at their agency; they have engaged in stonewalling and spin rather than dealing forthrightly with the discrimination that has occurred ? More broadly, NMNH officials have made clear their intent to prevent any scientist publicly skeptical of Darwinian theory from ever being appointed as a Research Associate, no matter how sterling his or her professional credentials or research. This is discrimination, plain and simple.?
The Darwinist antagonism against those who challenge Darwinism on scientific grounds or who otherwise offer an alternative scientific explanation is quite astounding:
?'There is a disturbing trend of scientists, teachers, and students coming under attack for expressing support in the theory of intelligent design, or even just questioning evolution,' said Robert Crowther director of communications for Discovery Institute?s Center for Science & Culture. 'The freedom of scientists, teachers, and students to question Darwin's theory, or to express alternative scientific hypothesis is coming under increasing attack by people that can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists.'? www.discovery.org)
An ISU professor has reportedly implied that Gonzalez is ?linked to the Taliban? www.discovery.org#Statement). It is actually certain Darwinists that are anti-religious fundamentalists, possibly on par with militant terrorist bombers.
Amid the prevailing ?scientific? notion in the early 20th century that space is infinite and time eternal, Lemaitre laid down the primitive foundations of the Big Bang theory when he proposed ?a day without yesterday? ? the beginning of space and time with a massive burst of fireworks. In response to Lemaitre, the astronomer Arthur Eddington wrote in 1931, ?Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me ? I should like to find a genuine loophole.? Likewise, do some Darwinists ?hate the truth? (that is, God, and any evidence suggesting that their existence is meaningful and purposeful)? It seems so, judging from the behavior of Darwinist elites as noted above. These events make one wonder whether a slight variation of Eddington?s confession might be attributed to Darwinists and other materialists, to wit, ?Philosophically, the notion of God bringing about the present order of Nature is repugnant to me. I should like to find a genuine loophole in ID theory and to bully ID proponents.? Although intelligent design, as a scientific theory, neither assumes nor proves a supernatural creator such as God, there seems to be egotistic ill-will and repugnant feeling of anxiety in the psyche of some Darwinists and other materialists in that ID is compatible with and might be used to support Judeo-Christian and Islamic beliefs. Do Darwinists and other materialists despise the possibility of some scientific evidence offering the slightest suggestion of God?s handiwork in nature, even if the inference to God is confined to philosophy?
Despite the maltreatment, the fabricated falsehood of materialistic theories will repeatedly get knocked down by the evidence, until the burning ashes of the falsehood are eradicated from science books and are shoved aside for publication in history books. God?s truth reigns high and knocks down falsehood. Perhaps the enduring battle between naturalism and design is intentionally meant to painstakingly progress through certain stages of a trend that is to serve as a lesson for future generations of materialists.
Nadeem
"We have given you the truth, but most of you hate the truth.? -Quran 43:78
Action Alert : How You Can Help Support Dr. Gonzalez And Stand Up For Academic Freedom:
?Here is what you can do to help Guillermo Gonzalez in his fight for academic freedom. The decision to deny his tenure is currently under appeal before the president of Iowa State University. You can call President Gregory L. Geoffroy at (515) 294-2042 or email him at [email protected] and let him know that you support Guillermo Gonzalez and his right to follow the evidence wherever it leads.? www.discovery.org)
Reports came out a few days ago that Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, a pro-ID astronomer with impressive professional and scientific credentials, has been denied tenure at Iowa State University www.discovery.org, www.wcfcourier.com www.midiowanews.com). The denial is unfair and questionable not only in light of the past maltreatment of ID proponents but also especially so in light of his credentials that far exceed the university?s minimum requirements for academic tenure. He wrote 68 peer-reviewed, scientific articles and co-authored a college-level astronomy textbook published by Cambridge University Press, led to the discovery of two exoplanets, was asked to serve as a referee for leading scientific publications, was a pioneer in formulating the galactic habitable zone concept (which he described in a cover article titled ?Refuges for Life in a Hostile Universe? in Scientific American in 2001 - atropos.as.arizona.edu), and his articles have been published in prominent journals such as Science, Nature, and Scientific American.
The university?s news release www.iastate.edu) states that Geoffroy has until June 6 to decide on Gonzalez's appeal. If you support The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery or the cosmological fine-tuning arguments in defense of design in the universe, please call or email President Gregory L. Geoffroy in support of the outstanding professional and scientific credentials of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez and his right to follow the evidence where it leads. This is an opportunity for design-sympathetic Muslims to do at least the bare minimum to support ID ? write at least 3-5 sentences in an email to Geoffroy. Sadly, the denial of tenure for Gonzalez is yet another extension of the long line of discrimination, harassment, and persecution against ID proponents who are scientists, professors, teachers, and students in academia. Many scientists, astronomers, and physicists uphold cosmological design as the best causal explanation for several cosmic ?coincidences? in everything from the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the fundamental physical constants, the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant for the universe not to runaway into an inflationary expansion that would have prevented the formation of stars and galaxies to the resonance levels in the carbon atom and the unique properties of hydrogen, oxygen, and water. Why should Gonzalez be singled out and denied tenure ? simply due to the fact that he is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, or due to fear that his tenure might give the impression that ISU is an ID school? This is unjust persecution against a man of solid scientific credentials.
The denial of tenure for Gonzalez is reminiscent of the persecution of Dr. Richard Sternberg in 2004 www.rsternberg.net). Sternberg, editor of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was illegitimately indicted, harassed, and accused at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History for publishing in August 2004, on allegedly creationist and religious grounds, Dr. Stephen Meyer?s scientific paper ?The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories? www.discovery.org). In the paper, Meyer argued that evolutionary theory cannot account for the origin of biological information necessary to build novel life forms (such as novelty that arose during the Cambrian Explosion) and that intelligent design offers an alternative causal explanation for the origin of information and the higher taxonomic categories of life. Darwinists demand pro-ID publications in peer-reviewed, scientific journals. Yet, when Meyer?s pro-ID paper was published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal, Darwinists sought to withdraw the paper by fabricating the lie that the editor (Sternberg) failed to meticulously adhere to the methodology of peer-review.
The United States House of Representatives Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources investigated Sternberg?s case and concluded in December 2006 in a report titled ?Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian?s Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution? www.souder.house.gov):
?The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg?s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. Moreover, the agency?s top officials?Secretary Lawrence Small and Deputy Secretary Sheila Burke?have shown themselves completely unwilling to rectify the wrongs that were done or even to genuinely investigate the wrongdoing. Most recently, Burke and Small have allowed NMNH officials to demote Dr. Sternberg to the position of Research Collaborator, despite past assurances from Burke that Dr. Sternberg was a ?Research Associate in good standing? and would be given ?full and fair consideration? for his request to renew his Research Associateship. 2 The failure of Small and Burke to take any action against such discrimination raises serious questions about the Smithsonian?s willingness to protect the free speech and civil rights of scientists who may hold dissenting views on topics such as biological evolution.?
The congressional report summarized the major findings of the investigation (emphasis removed from original):
- ?Officials at the Smithsonian?s National Museum of Natural History created a hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights.?
- ?In emails exchanged during August and September 2004, NMNH officials revealed their intent to use their government jobs to discriminate against scientists based on their outside activities regarding evolution.?
- ?The hostility toward Dr. Sternberg at the NMNH was reinforced by anti-religious and political motivations.?
- ?NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group on government time and using government emails to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternberg?s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him.?
- ?Secretary Small and Deputy Secretary Burke have exhibited a head-in-the-sand attitude toward wrongdoing at their agency; they have engaged in stonewalling and spin rather than dealing forthrightly with the discrimination that has occurred ? More broadly, NMNH officials have made clear their intent to prevent any scientist publicly skeptical of Darwinian theory from ever being appointed as a Research Associate, no matter how sterling his or her professional credentials or research. This is discrimination, plain and simple.?
The Darwinist antagonism against those who challenge Darwinism on scientific grounds or who otherwise offer an alternative scientific explanation is quite astounding:
?'There is a disturbing trend of scientists, teachers, and students coming under attack for expressing support in the theory of intelligent design, or even just questioning evolution,' said Robert Crowther director of communications for Discovery Institute?s Center for Science & Culture. 'The freedom of scientists, teachers, and students to question Darwin's theory, or to express alternative scientific hypothesis is coming under increasing attack by people that can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists.'? www.discovery.org)
An ISU professor has reportedly implied that Gonzalez is ?linked to the Taliban? www.discovery.org#Statement). It is actually certain Darwinists that are anti-religious fundamentalists, possibly on par with militant terrorist bombers.
Amid the prevailing ?scientific? notion in the early 20th century that space is infinite and time eternal, Lemaitre laid down the primitive foundations of the Big Bang theory when he proposed ?a day without yesterday? ? the beginning of space and time with a massive burst of fireworks. In response to Lemaitre, the astronomer Arthur Eddington wrote in 1931, ?Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me ? I should like to find a genuine loophole.? Likewise, do some Darwinists ?hate the truth? (that is, God, and any evidence suggesting that their existence is meaningful and purposeful)? It seems so, judging from the behavior of Darwinist elites as noted above. These events make one wonder whether a slight variation of Eddington?s confession might be attributed to Darwinists and other materialists, to wit, ?Philosophically, the notion of God bringing about the present order of Nature is repugnant to me. I should like to find a genuine loophole in ID theory and to bully ID proponents.? Although intelligent design, as a scientific theory, neither assumes nor proves a supernatural creator such as God, there seems to be egotistic ill-will and repugnant feeling of anxiety in the psyche of some Darwinists and other materialists in that ID is compatible with and might be used to support Judeo-Christian and Islamic beliefs. Do Darwinists and other materialists despise the possibility of some scientific evidence offering the slightest suggestion of God?s handiwork in nature, even if the inference to God is confined to philosophy?
Despite the maltreatment, the fabricated falsehood of materialistic theories will repeatedly get knocked down by the evidence, until the burning ashes of the falsehood are eradicated from science books and are shoved aside for publication in history books. God?s truth reigns high and knocks down falsehood. Perhaps the enduring battle between naturalism and design is intentionally meant to painstakingly progress through certain stages of a trend that is to serve as a lesson for future generations of materialists.
Nadeem
Comments on this journal
Henceforth, do not publish or endorse pro-ID literature and expect to attain tenure. Or else, dare to publish and ?perish,? for ?loopholes? will be dug out of your CV, no matter how impressive in otherwise unprejudiced verdict.
Atheism, materialism, dogmatism, favoritism, politics, prejudice, injustice, hostility, arrogance, and ignorance all seemed to be pooled up in one fine story of a foul shell game to sustain the religion of naturalism in the sciences.
Dr. Gregory L. Geoffroy
President, Iowa State University
1750 Beardshear Hall
Ames, Iowa 50011-2035
(515) 294-2042
Dear Dr. Geoffroy:
I am stunned that an outstanding scholar, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, has been denied tenure at Iowa State University. In view of his extraordinary scholarship, it is hard to conceive, in all fairness, how he could have been justifiably denied tenure as per the official standard set by the university. I fully support his desire to retain his academic freedom in following the evidence wherever it leads and his right to offer, without fear of discrimination in the professional workplace, his views to the general populace outside academia.
The following digest of Dr. Gonzalez?s professional achievements merits further consideration:
1. His novel and enduring research on life-supporting properties of stars and planets has led him to publish 12 peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject. Based on his work, he and his research team discovered the concept of galactic habitable zone (GHZ), a term that Dr. Gonzalez invented. In collaboration with paleontologist Dr. Peter Ward and astronomer Dr. Donald Brownlee, both at the University of Washington, he wrote a cover article about GHZ in Scientific American. His work on GHZ is featured online at NASA Astrobiology Institute nai.arc.nasa.gov). Akin to the concept of circumstellar habitable zone, the idea of GHZ has greatly contributed to our understanding of life-supportive conditions on the galactic scale. His work on GHZ aids Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) as his research has identified the distinctive spatiotemporal precincts of galaxies most likely to flourish conditions hospitable for life.
2. ISU?s Department of Physics and Astronomy Promotion and Tenure Policy and Procedure booklet states that ?or promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals.? Not only has Dr. Gonzalez published 68 peer-reviewed scientific papers and has far outshined the minimum requirement of ?approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals? but also he was a pioneer in the formulation of the concept of GHZ. He is prominently recognized world-wide as a reputable authority on GHZ.
3. An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported that the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System shows that next to Professor Curtis Struck?s highest h-index rating of 17 in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at ISU, Dr. Gonzalez has the second highest h-index rating of 13 for citations to his work. In other words, even tenured professors in the department do not have h-index ratings as high as that of an Assistant Professor. Moreover, the database also shows that his normalized citation count for articles published from 2001, the year he joined ISU, to 2007 is 144, the highest of any astronomer in his department during this period. The second highest citation count is 103, and the highest citation count among all tenured astronomers in his department is only 68. His lifetime citation count is 805, second highest in the department, and right next to the top citation count (905) of a tenured Full Professor, Dr. Stephen D. Kawaler. If he was not denied tenure for his views on intelligent design, then is it plausible to conclude that ISU does not regard these statistics as reflective of academic ?excellence??
4. His research has been cited in leading scientific publications such as Science, Nature, and Scientific American. There were a total of nearly 1,500 citations to his articles and research in scientific journals by the end of 2005. In particular, two of his papers have an extraordinary citation record for an Assistant Professor:
Cited 153 times: "Spectroscopic Analyses of the Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planetary System Candidates," Astronomy & Astrophysics, 334, 221 (1998).
Cited 139 times: "The Stellar Metallicity - Giant Planet Connection," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 285, 403 (1997).
5. He is one of the authors of Observational Astronomy www.cambridge.org), a college-level and a peer-reviewed astronomy textbook published by Cambridge University Press. The textbook not only has been mandatory in upper-level undergraduate courses on observational astronomy at ISU but also has been used at other institutions such as University of Toronto, London?s Global University, New Jersey?s Science & Technology University, University of Manitoba, Valparaiso University, and Franklin and Marshall College.
6. His research led to the discovery of two exoplanets, and he is building new technology to discover more.
7. He served on the NASA Astrobiology Institute Review Panel in June 2003, and the National Science Foundation Advanced Technologies and Instruments review panel in January 2005.
8. He served as a referee for Astronomical Journal, Astronomy & Astrophysics, Astrophysical Journal, Icarus, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Nature, Naturwissenschaften, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Origins of Life and Evolution Biospheres and Science.
Should Dr. Gonzalez choose to leave the university for being denied tenure, it would be disappointing to lose such a promising scholar.
Given such an outstanding track record, an impartial observer is led to believe that his tenure was denied for reasons other than lack of excellence in scholarship and research. In fact, two ISU faculty members, Dr. Eli Rosenberg and Dr. Curtis Struck conceded in World Magazine that Dr. Gonzalez?s views on intelligent design did factor into the decision to deny tenure. In response to publication of The Privileged Planet, Dr. Hector Avalos, Professor of Religious Studies at ISU, initiated a petition, signed by 120 faculty members at ISU, urging the faculty to reject intelligent design as legitimate science. It would be neglectful oversight to suppose that the petition, which was addressed to ?all faculty members,? played no role in the tenure decision. It is outside the intended scope of this letter to show how intelligent design abides by the scientific method of inquiry and is immune from religious preconception. Suffice it to state that intelligent design theory, like Big Bang theory, espouses no a priori philosophical commitment to religious canons of creation. Dr. Gonzalez?s research, much like any proper empirical approach characteristic of the scientific method of investigation, is restricted to the empirical domain of observation, measurement, experimentation, prediction, and falsification.
It is no wonder then that The Privileged Planet has received enthusiastic acclaim from scientists. In particular, the remarks of two prominent scientists at prestigious academies are especially noteworthy. Dr. Simon Conway Morris at the University of Cambridge has remarked thus:
?Is our universe a blind concatenation of atoms, evolution a random walk across a meaningless landscape, and our sense of purpose a pathetic shield against a supremely indifferent world? Or does the universe and our place within it click into place, repeatedly? These starkly different views open up immense metaphysical and theological questions, and at least part of the answer must come from science and the unfolding triumphs of cosmology, astronomy, and evolution.
In a book of magnificent sweep and daring Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards drive home the arguments that the old clich? of no place like home is eerily true of Earth. Not only that, but if the scientific method was to emerge anywhere, the Earth is about as suitable as you can get. Gonzalez and Richards have flung down the gauntlet. Let the debate begin; it is a question that involves us all.?
Dr. Owen Gingerich at Harvard University has this to say:
?This thoughtful, delightfully contrarian book will rile up those who believe the ?Copernican principle? is an essential philosophical component of modern science. Is our universe designedly congenial to intelligent, observing life? Passionate advocates of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) will find much to ponder in this carefully documented analysis.?
Furthermore, his research offers insightful clues to some of the most intriguing questions about the cosmos and pushes the limits of what science can achieve. For instance, his work may be considered a certain sub-set of the ?cosmic think tank? clas.asu.edu) that Dr. Paul Davies has established at Arizona State University to squarely address in a scientific manner the big questions that lurk at the boundary of science and philosophy. Dr. Gonzalez?s predictive, testable, and falsifiable hypotheses offer novel insights into the questions that ASU is not reluctant to explore, viz, ?Why is the universe so suited for life? Why are we here? Are we alone in the universe?? Dr. Steven Weinberg once remarked, ?The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.? At a conference on belief and reason at the Salk Institute, Dr. Davies declared, "The more the universe seems pointless, the more it is incomprehensible." Should Dr. Davies have been denied tenure? ASU seems to have embraced a more open-minded scientific challenge by pushing with prideful creativity the traditional boundaries of science. If Dr. Gonzalez were to leave ISU for being denied tenure and if I were to then choose one of two schools to attend (ISU and ASU), all else being equal, I would cheerfully opt to attend ASU to explore these hard questions.
Would these renowned scientists have voted to deny him tenure at University of Cambridge, Harvard University, and Arizona State University?
He is not alone in the scientific enterprise to suggest that certain features of the universe have been designed. Other scientists have conceded in peer-reviewed, scientific publications that certain features of the universe, such as the values of the fundamental physical constants, are best accounted for as finely tuned design and are unlikely to have been the result of a lucky cosmic accident. Even so, however, Dr. Gonzalez has confined discussion of design to spheres strictly outside the classroom. He has never expressed his views in the classroom because he considers his analysis of cosmological design too new for students.
Unless rescinded, your decision to deny tenure would serve as an exemplary historical precedent for the rest of academia that ?scientific? inquiry at Iowa State University must conform to certain philosophical axioms and that a departure from such unproven presumptions could impede or, at worst, abort one?s career progression. Unfortunately, the precedent would make the notion of academic freedom effectively worthless. An aura of fear would deter all but the most audacious Copernican scholars from exploring in a legitimate scientific manner the really deep-seated questions about the cosmos. In the long run, intellectual talent could get diverted from ISU to other fine academic institutions more sympathetic to open-minded research paradigm genuinely dedicated to the advancement of science.
I hope that you recognize that the scientist?s outstanding contribution to astronomy deserves fair justice, let alone thankful commendation. It is my personal plea to you, sir, that you reassess your decision and kindly retract the pronouncement to deny tenure.
Respectfully yours,
Nadeem Khan