STR † THE FREEDOM BLOG

Christian persecution, and unequal opportunities

May 28th, 2007 | Category: Junk Science Exposed

Friends,

What does it mean to be a great scientist? There are some who think a scientist should spend his life in his ivory tower, amongst papers and complex laboratory instruments. They say scientists should spend their lives picking away at obscure theories dreamt up by long-dead nerds, only to squirrel their research away in some academic thesis written in a strange language that nobody who speaks God’s English can understand. That person may be a scientist, but he certainly is not a great scientist.

The bookworm: Nobody does science by writing a bunch of dull papers; Who the heck cares about that stuff anyway?

There is another breed of researcher: Brave, Impulsive, Intuitive and unafraid of defying the consensus. This kind of scientist is more at home in the church or school-house than a dusty laboratory. He follows truth like a bloodhound follows the scent of a wetback. This sort of scientist thinks up ideas so great, they do not even need to be tested because everybody who listens with an open-mind just knows they are right. This guy doesn’t just publish papers: he writes best-selling books and movies that help people all under the world understand God’s creation. Now that is what I call a great scientist.

The true genius: He follows science wherever it leads, even if others are afraid.

So if you were deciding which of these two fellows to offer tenure to, which of these two fellows would you choose? The simpering coward or the bold truth-warrior? Funnily enough, Iowa State University just rejected one of the greatest scientists in the world - and the reason: Anti-Christian persecution.

Let me introduce Guillermo Gonzalez, one of the worlds greatest scientists and inventor of what one day will be shown to be the most important scientific discovery since Intelligent Design. Guillermo who is a fellow of the Discovery Institute and a close friend of Shelley The Republican.

This is one of the best and most important science books ever. Why is it that it is not compulsory for kids in school to read it? The answer is clear: Anti-Christian persecution.

Guillermo is credited as the discoverer of the “Privileged Planet” theory: The observation that it is incredibly unlikely that our planet, and it’s particular place in the universe could not have come about by sheer chance, and therefore the whole universe must have been designed by God. Why is it that this simple and obvious principle is regarded as controversial by the ultra-leftist whack-jobs at Iowa State University?

Guillermo Gonzales was guided by Jesus from the godless land of communist Cuba to teach Astronomy at ISU; Perhaps Jesus intended for him to become a martyr so that we can all learn a lesson?

The simple answer is that Professor Gonzales is yet another victim of the atheist conspiracy of hate that we Christians have to suffer every single day. Look at what Denys Oleary, one of the world’s most trusted investigative journalists has to say:

“It is well known that Hector Avalos, a religion prof who professes himself a secular humanist, and is faculty adviser to students who profess the same, has tried to stir up the faculty and community against Gonzalez via a petition signed by 120 faculty members - on account of Gonzalez’s personal interest in an intelligent design hypothesis as an explanation for his findings.”

Why would 120 fellow researchers gang up against one defenceless professor? Would it be because they are jealous that he has published a highly popular book which was turned into a box-office smash movie? Or is it because they are afraid that he might be on to something. O’leary adds:

“Now, materialism is shot to pieces anyway, and has been ever since quantum mechanics began to be understood. But hordes of tenured mediocrities still compel tax money from the public to defend their dissolving empire, and persecute anyone who threatens it.”

Denys Oleary: One of the world’s greatest science journalists. Why is it that the major publications avoid her work? This is another example of persecution against Christians.

These are sobering words indeed! If only all the scientists in the world writers shared O’leary’s grasp of quantum theory Guillermo Gonzales would have been awarded the tenure he deserves. It’s plain to see that ISU just could not stomach the idea of giving tenure to a scientist who has the courage to reinvent the very concept of science.

Yours in Christ,

Tristan J. Shuddery

URGENT PRAYER ALRERT Our friends at uncommon descent have put together an open letter to the board of ISU complaining about the unfair treatment that our dear Guillermo has received:

To: Gregory Geoffroy

President

Iowa State University

Dear Dr. Geoffroy,

Anyone familiar with the case of Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez suspects that he was not denied tenure at Iowa State for lack of academic excellence–he has nearly 70 peer-reviewed publications, including an article in Scientific American, and Nature and Science have run articles about his work–but because of his expressed view (expressed only OUTSIDE the classroom) that certain features of the universe can be considered as evidence of design. This is in fact a widely held view among scientists: for example, it is a well-established fact–established through many peer-reviewed scientific articles–that most of the basic physical constants of our universe, such as Planck’s constant, the speed of light, the charge and mass of the electron, and so on, had to have nearly the values that they do have or intelligent life would not have been possible anywhere in the universe. There are only two widely-held interpretations for this so-called “fine tuning.” One is that the fortuitous values of these constants are the result of design, the other is that there are many universes, with varying values for these constants, and that life arose in ours because the values here were favorable to the development of life. Neither view is strictly scientific, because both the alleged designer and the alleged other universes are in principle unobservable. There are quite a number of scientists who prefer the design explanation. Dr. Gonzalez may be in the minority, but it is a very sizable minority, and most members of this minority are free to express this point of view at their respective institutions without fear of academic punishment.

Dr. Gonzalez has in fact, through peer-reviewed publications, added significantly to the list of features in our universe which may suggest design. He has rarely, if ever, spoken publicly in support of the less widely-held view that certain features of biological evolution also suggest design, but apparently his association with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which does hold this view, was more than could be tolerated by some faculty members at ISU. His views were criticized in a letter drafted by a professor of religion, Hector Avalos, and signed by 120 ISU professors, and we suspect that this letter played an important role in the tenure decision.

Your decision to deny tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez, unless reversed, sends a clear message to the rest of the academic world that only some philosophical points of view are welcome at Iowa State University. Academic freedom is meaningless if it is limited to certain philosophies. Please reconsider your decision.

William Dembski,

Tristan Shuddery,

Michael Behe,

Billy Bob Neck,

Shelley Goodman,

Pastor Bucks,

Sam Johnson

11 Comments so far

Proud german May 28th, 2007 2:19 am

What does it mean to be a great scientist? There are some who think a scientist should spend his life in his ivory tower, amongst papers and complex laboratory instruments.

It actually requires to be smart, have a good education (especially in science) and having luck. Then you gonna start. Make a hypothesis and see if it can be proven or disproven. And perhaps you?Ç¬¨?Ç¬•re already on the way to a nobel prize.

The bookworm: Nobody does science by writing a bunch of dull papers; Who the heck cares about that stuff anyway?

Scientific research (I mean real research, not something like that ID dumbsh**) requires often to calculate with quite a lot of data. Better to write it off than to forget something.

This kind of scientist is more at home in the church or school-house than a dusty laboratory. He follows truth like a bloodhound follows the scent of a wetback. This sort of scientist thinks up ideas so great, they do not even need to be tested because everybody who listens with an open-mind just knows they are right.

And that makes him a preacher, not a scientist. Honestly, just putting a thesis and not proving it is totally unscientifical. And letting oneself getting biased by religion is even worse.

The same goes about being biased because that guy shares your silly opinion and is a friend of yours.

So if you were deciding which of these two fellows to offer tenure to, which of these two fellows would you choose? The simpering coward or the bold truth-warrior?

No1. Science doesn?Ç¬¨?Ç¬•t need any gung-ho-screaming cowboys.

Guillermo is credited as the discoverer of the ?¢‚Ç¨?°?É‚Äû?É¬?Privileged Planet?¢‚Ç¨?°?É‚Äû?É¬? theory: The observation that it is incredibly unlikely that our planet, and it?¢‚Ç¨?°?É‚Äû?É¬¥s particular place in the universe could not have come about by sheer chance, and therefore the whole universe must have been designed by God. Why is it that this simple and obvious principle is regarded as controversial by the ultra-leftist whack-jobs at Iowa State University?

“Incredibly unlikely” does not equal impossible. And the guy did not present any evidence. You see, I think it?Ç¬¨?Ç¬•s incredibly unlikely that you have more than 5 working brain cells. This is now the truth until you prove otherwise. YOu see, I can be a scientist just like Mr. Guillermo.

Why would 120 fellow researchers gang up against one defenceless professor?

He?Ç¬¨?Ç¬•d just need to present credible evidence for his thesis. That would be a defense like a stone wall. Unfortunately, he has none. How discomforting for him.

Denys Oleary: One of the world?¢‚Ç¨?°?É‚Äû?É¬¥s greatest science journalists. Why is it that the major publications avoid her work? This is another example of persecution against Christians.

Or a proof that newspapers try to avoid bringing stupid ID propaganda into public and like everyone else witha sane mind, want some evidence.

by a professor of religion, Hector Avalos,

DOesn?Ç¬¨?Ç¬•t that hurt, Shelley?

The German Guy
IMPEACH BUSH!
The poll is missing one entry. The one that will happen: None of the above/democrat
Thomas May 28th, 2007 5:14 am

“What does it [...] nobody who speaks God?¢‚Ç¨?°?É‚Äû?É¬¥s English can understand. That person may be a scientist, but he certainly is not a great scientist.”

1. God’s language is Hebrew, as his Chosen people are the Jews.
2. If you can’t understand even the most simple physical of chemical laws, you must not be very well educated. For example: speed=velocity*time is understandable for a toddler, and it’s perfectly fine English.

“So if you were deciding which of these two fellows to offer tenure to, which of these two fellows would you choose? The simpering coward or the bold truth-warrior? Funnily enough, Iowa State University just rejected one of the greatest scientists in the world - and the reason: Anti-Christian persecution.”

Let me explain science to you. After a long period of research and intellectual discussion, someone will state a new theory. If that theory can be mathematically derived from allready proven scientific formulas/theories, OR if that theory is proven to be true in every imaginable situation, this new theory is accepted FACT in the scientific world.

So yes, every sane person would offer tenure to someone working along the worldwide accepted scientific guidelines, as the chance he will discover something TRUE is about a million time higher than your ‘bold truth-warrior’. Your choice of scientist is comparable to letting a child perform surgery on you, as that child is probably more honest than the average doctor, and as we all know, children aren’t afraid to speak the truth.

But whats the difference? Oh yeah, that’s true, a child doesn’t know a THING about surgery. And accordingly, your Guillermo doesn’t know a thing about science!

And there you go, the reason he doesn’t get accepted at a conventional university is because a respected university likes to conduct science in a respectable way, and accepting someone who sprouts theories out the ground as if anyone can do that, doesn’t help.

“Guillermo is credited as the discoverer of the ?¢‚Ç¨?°?É‚Äû?É¬?Privileged Planet?¢‚Ç¨?°?É‚Äû?É¬? theory: The observation that it is incredibly unlikely that our planet, and it?¢‚Ç¨?°?É‚Äû?É¬¥s particular place in the universe could not have come about by sheer chance, and therefore the whole universe must have been designed by God. Why is it that this simple and obvious principle is regarded as controversial by the ultra-leftist whack-jobs at Iowa State University?”

First wrong assumption: ‘It’s incredibly unlikely that our planet and it?¢‚Ç¨?°?É‚Äû?É¬¥s particular place in the universe have come about by sheer chance’

The universe is infinitely large, and still growing. Therefor, the chance that there are more planets with comparable circumstances as our earth is not only infinitely big, but that chance is getting bigger every second. And there’s the problem with your Gonzales right away. He uses his FEELING (’incredibely unlikely’) to state a theory, whereas in science, you have to eliminate your human emotions as they will only limit you in your ability to conduct science. It’s like me saying: ‘Gosh, abortion is a complicated operation. Must be designed by GOD then!’ And I’m sure you wouldn’t agree with that…

Second wrong assumption: ‘and therefore the whole universe must have been designed by God’

1. From his first statement, it only follows that the EARTH must have been designed, not the whole universe.
2. From his ‘evidence’ it isn’t derivable that God was the designer. It might be Allah, Buddah, or a flying spaghetti monster.

Seems like your ’scientist’ really has to learn to conclude only facts that can be derived from his evidence. His way of conducting science is pretty laughable as it is now.

“ultra-leftist whack-jobs at Iowa State University”

Jesus said: Don?¢‚Ç¨?°?É‚Äû?É¬¥t judge others, and God won?¢‚Ç¨?°?É‚Äû?É¬¥t judge you.
- Luke 6:37

“Why would 120 fellow researchers gang up against one defenceless professor? Would it be because they are jealous that he has published a highly popular book which was turned into a box-office smash movie? Or is it because they are afraid that he might be on to something.”

1. Having a highly popular book which turned into a box-office smash movie, and STILL being rejected by leading intellectuals, only indicates that his ’science’ is accepted only by the dumbest of the dumb, which is something to think about to begin with…
2. The REAL scientific community is very eager of the integrity and trustworthy reputation of their respective work terrains. It’s only logical they want to keep it that way by keeping your kind of ’scientist’ out the door. Scientific research, as any kind of work, is faster and more reliable if done by a group of people who think the same way and conduct their work by worldwide accepted methods.
3. 120 scientists ganging up on one Gonzales is really no different from 20 million neoconservative rightwing Christians (= you) ganging up on:

1. One transvestite in Sarasota.
2. One Micheal Moore.
3. One Nancy Pelosi.
4. One Harry Reid.
5. One Barack Obama.
6. One Hillary Clinton.
7. And everyone else you badmouth on STR.com

Oh no wait, it IS different. The latter is worse..

Finally, congratulations to ISU for the only right decision, hopefully universities all over the USA will keep these breed of people away from the terrain of atual science.

Greetings from liberal Holland,
Thomas van der Meer

PS Proud German: I guess I’m saying basically the same thing you are, but I was writing for so long, I’m posting it anyway =)
Thomas May 28th, 2007 5:18 am

Correction of my above post: space=velocity*time.
HappyPorn May 28th, 2007 6:34 am

It’s really obvious that the world is created thru unintelligent design. Shelly is a greater proof on that. When the FSM created her he was definitely drunk after a day over the beer volcano.
Peter May 28th, 2007 8:44 am

You have a high number of excellent scientists in the States. But it looks like, G.Gonzales is a preacher and not a great scientist in physics and astronomy. Many scientists believe in God all over the globe (Maybe in a different way like you do), but they dont want to mix their faith in God with science.
I agree with Proud German and Thomas from Holland. Their comments are very good and intelligent.
Greetings from the musictown Vienna!
Peter
bubba May 28th, 2007 10:05 am

Technically, anti-Christian persecution would be the persecution of anyone not Christian. It should be Christian persecution. Knowing how backward everybody is at STR I understand the mistake.

Bubba
NoDeca May 28th, 2007 2:11 pm

every planet with a kind of Shelleytherepukelican on it can’t be that special so god never designed the universe.
same logic.
Hester's Pearl May 28th, 2007 2:58 pm

…………I dont even know how to respond to this one…..I just cant……..
Dustin May 28th, 2007 9:06 pm

Academic freedom entitles people to carry out their own research and hold their own opinions. It doesn’t entitle them to their own facts, and certainly not in science where the professor’s job is the discovery and application of scientific fact.

This isn’t discrimination, this is a bad scientist being kept out of a job which he is bad at.
olorin May 29th, 2007 11:55 am

Our esteemed host said: “Iowa State University just rejected one of the greatest scientists in the world…”

Even the Discovery Institute, where he is a Senior Fellow, only claims that Gonzalez is a good scientist, worthy of tenure. It seems that zealots must always make their martyrs bigger than life—but, puh-leeze.

The Discovery Institute will also be surprised to learn that Prof. Gonzalez (”Guillermo” to his close friends) is the “inventor of what one day will be shown to be the most important scientific discovery since Intelligent Design.” Hint: the DI thinks that Phillip Johnson and a couple of other DI early-birds invented it, and that “Guillermo” picked it up somewhat later.

Both the DI and real scientists will be surprised to learn that “Guillermo is credited as the discoverer of the ‘Privileged Planet’ theory….” They thought that he was the discoverer of the “habitable zone” theory, and that Privileged Planet” is a movie.

One more item that is too egregious to pass up: “Denys Oleary: One of the world?¢‚Ç¨?°?É‚Äû?É¬¥s greatest science journalists. Why is it that the major publications avoid her work?”

The major publications will be surprised to learn that they have shunned her work, becuase she has never submitted anything to them. If she did, they probably would reject it. Not because of her bias, but because she has absolutely no education or background that qualifies her to write about any branch of actual science.

Do the major publications shun authors for bias? Your soi-disant friend Guillermo has in fact been published in Scientific American, one of the premier ID-bashers. Last month’s issue also has an article by a scientist who is widely reviled for his insistence that the HIV virus does not cause AIDS. Ironically enough, this article proposes a cause for cancer that uses an evolutionary mechanism.

Keep up the good work, and don’t let the facts get in your way!
olorin May 29th, 2007 5:26 pm

Here’s another that is too good to pass up: “If only all the scientists in the world writers shared O?¢‚Ç¨?°?É‚Äû?É¬¥leary?¢‚Ç¨?°?É‚Äû?É¬¥s (sic) grasp of quantum theory Guillermo Gonzales would have been awarded the tenure he deserves.”

I’m sending that one in to the Logic Fallacy Files as a world-class non-sequitur!

I would suggest a more accurate conclusion: If all the scientists in the world shared O’Leary’s grasp of quantum theory, they would all have flunked their undergraduate quantum mechanics classes.