From FreeGonazlez.com:
Now, as a world class scientist, Dr. Gonzalez is facing persecution
from an unexpected source – his employer, Iowa State University. His
academic track record exceeds the tenure requirements of his
department, and he exceeds other tenured ISU astronomers in key
measures of scientific research productivity. Yet professors in
Gonzalez’s department voted to deny him tenure. Email files show that
these professors rejected him because of his philosophical approach to
science, not his academic qualifications.
Translation? He supports the idea of Intelligent Design, and the administration which supposedly supports academic freedom doesn’t seem to really believe in such. Gonzalez is also featured in the just released Ben Stein documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
Does this man also teach? He is certainly entitled to indulge whatever philosophical approach he wants, but he is not entitled to teach it. An academic department in any university maintains certain standards, and his does not accept creationism as an adequate scientific explanation to be taught. If he wants to promote that, he should find an institution which will accommodate him.
Consider this: If I wanted to teach "gay studies" at a Bible university and I had plenty of qualifications, would they be entitled to deny me tenure? Think about it.
Christianity:
Jesus
The Bible
Various other accepted and not accepted writings
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, various other followers
Evilution:
Darwin
Origin of species
Various other accepted and not accepted writings
Sagan, etc.
No difference to me, if one can be taught, both should be taught.
If Christianity is taught as science, why not Islam or Hinduism or Satanism? Where do we stop?
I don't think Gonzales is being fired for teaching ID, just for believing it and supporting it within the academic community. In fact, he *could* teach it if in the right class – maybe philosophy of science, or statistics, or scientific suppositions, etc. It is even possible to mention it along with other theories of origins, as well as when discussing information theory and genetics.
And as I said before, unless the hiring agreement prohibits such things specifically, I think he is perfectly within his rights to teach it. At most evangelical seminaries, participation in or supporting homosexuality I'm sure is strictly and specifically verboten. However, teaching on it from a biblical point of view, obviously, is not.
Intelligent design is a religion. Who is the intelligent designer? Answer: God. Are God beliefs scientific? No.
Though Gonzalez has tenure, he has no interest in real science if he wants to inject the supernatural into it. In terms of credibility, he has as much as an atheist with a theology degree from a prestigious seminary who aspires to become a pastor.
Why not allow the option? And I think Evilution can be compared to the parameters of the "high-points" of the worldly structure of belief in a messiah(Bible v Origin of Species), that is why I pointed out the comparisons. Like I said, no different to me when looking at its formation. And we are talking about free thought. There is no free thought when only one side is allowed to be represented and the other side(s) demonized. Apparently there is a desire by students to be taught this side or the issue would not exist.
I think the whole socialist line of thought that there is nothing but the nanny to place faith in or to allow one to deal with problematic situations is exposed here when such a fight is put up against people who believe in a supreme entity other than a human government as "Lord". To teach that man is divine and able to solve all of their own problems is stupid but seems to be the Godhaterists
line of thinking. Wow, man operating on his own really has it all figured out in this perfect utopia we live in, right? The refusal to see the spiritual/biological relationship of man hand in hand with a creator will rob man of his true abilities. And from what Aaron commented on earlier this week, may just be the spiritual "hunger" that goes unsatisfied in many.
Scientific data is best guesses and change in time and change with the differing views of who or what has a stake in its theoretical development.
"If Christianity is taught as science, why not Islam or Hinduism or Satanism? Where do we stop?" ——->
We are not talking about Christianity being taught, but creationism which is hardly only a Christian line of thinking.
"Intelligent design is a religion. Who is the intelligent designer? Answer: God. Are God beliefs scientific? No." ——->
Let this be decided in the arena of free thought. Free thought gentlemen. If one wishes to come to the conclusion that everything that exists is a cosmic accident, fine. Sad and vacuum like, but fine. But let the ideas be proven out over time by letting the "people" decide.
Christianists will not be satisfied until we substitute the Bible for science texts throughout the school system. Until they can establish a de facto theocracy, with universal worship of the xian god and xian principles the law of the land, we shall never hear the last of them. In fact, we never have heard the last of them: from Christianity's inception, it has sought to substitute itself for free thought and the application of reason. Look it up if you don't believe me.
"it has sought to substitute itself for free thought and the application of reason." ——->
If we reason on Creationism in a classroom, with Godhateristas and Godloverites all there to learn and discuss what each other believes, we are not exercising free thought?
Only when creation is dismissed is when free thought comes into play?
"Only when creation is dismissed is when free thought comes into play?"
Absolutely. Creationists are poor deluded Christians who think Genesis is a biology text. If you insist on believing Santa is scientific, expect to be expelled from your science job.
Only when creation is dismissed is when free thought comes into play?
No, if free thought is given free rein creationism will be shown to be the fraud that it is. Maybe we should also be teaching that the Earth is flat and that the universe revolves around it? Isn't it a violation of "free thought" that these theories are kept out of science classrooms? Creationism cannot, and has not, stood up to the scientific method, and thus it has no place in science classrooms. Maybe evolutionary theory should also be taught in Sunday school and Christian adult classes in church? Maybe the Bible should come with a sticker on the cover which states that creationism is only a theory? Why not? Are Christians trying to stifle free thought (Heaven forbid!)?
Seeker, check the Obama watch: view on religion http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/11/obama-on-sm…
"No, if free thought is given free rein creationism will be shown to be the fraud that it is." ——->
I would accept that challenge. And so should you if this is how you feel. It would vindicate your religion. But I believe the weaknesses of the scientific world and a greater knowledge of what creationists believe would result. If free thought is our guide, and freedom is still alive and well in this country, we should by all means allow this in schools. The dragging of feet and the combative nature of libs of supposedly high stature in their own lib created world only makes me more certain of the fear they have that giving in to natural forces and truth, not scientific ever changing and prejudiced findings, would ultimately lead them to see how things really are, not how they would wish them to be.
"Maybe we should also be teaching that the Earth is flat and that the universe revolves around it? Isn't it a violation of "free thought" that these theories are kept out of science classrooms?"——->
No. We have these things pretty well figured out. At least I thought we did until you brought them up.:)
"Creationism cannot, and has not, stood up to the scientific method, and thus it has no place in science classrooms."——->
It has not been exhausted, if ever breeched at all. It needs to be offered, as an elective, pulled apart and put together again. So should evilution. Creationism gets pushed away, never looked at closely because it is stigmatized as a redneck uninformed view of sorts, even though most people who have ever existed have believed in creation. And its gets dismissed by some. Evilution still does not and can not explain the why and how of life, but is held close by some as a factual thing. Theory-of-evilution.
"Maybe evolutionary theory should also be taught in Sunday school and Christian adult classes in church? Maybe the Bible should come with a sticker on the cover which states that creationism is only a theory? Why not? Are Christians trying to stifle free thought (Heaven forbid!)?"——->
I thought we were speaking of school electives, or at least intertwining of Creationism within science classrooms?
Church is not school, of course unless you are Islamo-fascist, then they are both the same. But I digress, since church goers are usually Godloverites, I would say it would be a topic of short duration in the congregation.
And I would say that those who pick up a Bible with any frequency and read from it really do not need a warning label. Picking up and bearing the implement of torture that Jesus was impaled upon is a risk already taken and understood. No warning label required.
"Absolutely. Creationists are poor deluded Christians who think Genesis is a biology text. If you insist on believing Santa is scientific, expect to be expelled from your science job."——->
You can not seriously believe that. And if you do, you are seriously deluded.
Scientific American weighs in.
'nuff said!
From the link you posted:
Site Under Maintenance
Scientific American's web site is currently unavailable due to scheduled maintenance. This maintenance is to ensure that the site continues to function properly.
We apologize for this inconvenience, and appreciate your patience. Please return later today to access the site. Thank you for your cooperation.
Webmaster
ScientificAmerican.com
Just like the Big science/Atheist crowd … they tell you your wrong if you disagree and then when you ask why, they are bereft of answers … (rotflmao) … or maybe divine intervention?
PS-The "site" I go to for answers is always "up" and ready to serve.(lol)…………..
It was there when I referenced it. It'll be back, don't worry: you can't keep science down.
Reading that SciAm article makes me realize the low level of argumentation that secularists and evolutionists accept in defense of their cause. There are so many logical and polemic errors in there, it's pathetic. If that's the case against the movie, I am not worried. For example:
– "It's not as though anything in Expelled would have been likely to change our views."
At least they admit that they are incredibly biased, and no amount of reasoning or evidence would have changed their minds – yet somehow to them, that's 'scientific.'
– "Shrugging off most of the film's attacks all recycled from previous pro-ID works"
In other words, it is easier to ridicule their arguments as beneath contempt (see 7 steps to supressing opponents' ideas) than to address them.
– "its heavy-handed linkage of modern biology to the Holocaust demands a response for the sake of simple human decency."
The problem with this lie is that they are replacing "Darwinism" with "modern biology," misrepresenting the movie. I'm sure the movie does not attack modern science, but rather, describes the obvious and documented links between Darwinism and eugenics and Nazism, not to mention the cruel atheistic regimes of our times.
At this point, only the third paragraph, this writer has lost all credibility, and is writing a self-righteous screed.
—-
While the article has many valid criticisms of the film, the bottom line is that this type of derision is only partly earned by the film, and totally expected from the evolutionary faithful.
But what the original post is really about is about persecution of those who don't buy into the evolutionary dogma.
"But what the original post is really about is about persecution of those who don't buy into the evolutionary dogma."
Creationists are poor deluded Christians who think Genesis is a biology text. If you insist on believing Santa is scientific, expect to be expelled from your science job.
Actually, what this proves is that religionists are impervious to reason and only want to have their prejudices stroked. Thus, it's ironic that you accuse scientists of the same thing. Committed believers are the audience for this movie as it preaches to the choir.
btw: science is not a religion despite your clever rhetorical insinuations.
As the man said,"Darwinism does not work, we would like our God back".
"btw: science is not a religion despite your clever rhetorical insinuations."——->
Not science, louis, evilution is a parallel line of thought next to creationism, thus my thought going back to the original topic above.
And the bare bones:
Christianity:
Jesus
The Bible
Various other accepted and not accepted writings
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, various other followers
Evilution:
Darwin
Origin of species
Various other accepted and not accepted writings
Sagan, etc.
No difference to me, if one can be taught, both should be taught.
Science does not disprove creation or God. It can not because it does not deal with anything outside of the myopic scientific realm. Creationism can include the physically known plus other aspects which can fill out the whole picture. Free thought, given as an elective or an alternative. Thats the way, any other way is not how we do things here. Maybe China … I am sure the Party holds these evilutionary thoughts in mind as they crush those who do not submit.
If you are happy with a drawer full of old fossils as explaining your existence, cool. But thats not deep enough for me. I prefer the more rich universal environment that creation gives. You like the cold vacuum of cosmic accident, I like the order that creation shows me.
Lib philosophy/evilution:
"all animals are equals, except those with the 'correct' mindset. they are more equal, natural selections obvious superior chosen".
Lib philosophy/evilution:
“all animals are equals, except those with the ‘correct’ mindset. they are more equal, natural selections obvious superior chosen”.
Lib philosophy/evilution
This type of rhetoric is typical of you. What's the point of trying to reason with the irrational? It's pointless.
Which "rhetoric" as you call it? It's called academic freedom. There is no freedom when all ideas(creationism v evilution)can not be discussed.
You do not try to reason. It's either your way or no way. I believe my comments point to the truth. You are the one who calls any form of thought on life by a higher source other than a mud puddle as irrational. It would seem you are the one who can not reason. But I will continue in the future … I find you savable … :)
"You are the one who calls any form of thought on life by a higher source other than a mud puddle as irrational."
Of course. Creationists are poor deluded Christians who think Genesis is a biology text. If you insist on believing Santa is scientific, expect to be expelled from your science job.