Saturday, May 12, 2007

Gonzalez denied tenure

As RSR has pointed out the ID promoting astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, at Iowa State, has been denied tenure. This will of course, lead to grand claims of discrimination by the ID crowd, but let’s take a look at some of his work.

His ICSD profile lists him as having published over 60 papers in reputable journals “including Astronomy and Astrophysics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Astrophysical Journal and Solar Physics.” The NASA Astrophysical Database System when searched, confirms that he has a good deal of contributions up to present day. Interestingly enough however, his Discovery Institute publication list doesn’t feature a single one published in a respected astronomical journal. Perhaps they wish to hide the fact that much of his work deals with stellar evolution (specifically post main sequence stars) from the young earth contingency that makes up so much of the ID crowd?

Regardless, publications aren’t the only requirements for tenure. From the Iowa State Tenure Policy, tenure can be denied or repealed if there is “(2) dishonesty in teaching, research or extension activity” (Emphasis mine). Distorting the views of the scientific community and peddling pseudoscience to the masses sounds pretty damned dishonest to me.

14 comments:

Forthekids said...

Hey Jon,

Looks like the DI caught your lack of research in regard to what you were bloggin' about.

I've caught your errors in the past as well. Better get a handle on that.

BTW, I never did comment on your post about the Egnor April Fool's Day joke. Ya thought they fooled me, but in reality the joke was on you!

Make sure you get your details straight, big guy.

Oleg Tchernyshyov said...

Forthekids,

I'm afraid Casey Luskin twisted Jon's comment like a pretzel.

Jon is clearly aware of Gonzalez's technical publications (reread the second paragraph of the original post), he simply notes that the DI list does not include them. By saying "He’s trying to imply Dr. Gonzalez doesn't have a prestigious publication record" Casey puts words in Jon's mouth. That's not a good thing.

Forthekids said...

Hmmm...I'm not sure that reads correctly. If that is what Jon is trying to say, he needs to rewrite that paragraph because it is not clear.

Why in the heck would the DI try to hide Dr. Gonzalez's accomplishments? Casey sure put them out there for all to see in his post, and he explained why they don't have his articles posted on their website.

Jon is constantly alluding to those who disagree with him as being "dishonest". I think he needs to be much more careful with that word.

I've met Jon and shared several emails with him, and I believe him to be an honest person. So, I know he truly believes what he writes. But, I think he's been very misled by some really notorious spin doctors from the left...ie. RSR, etc.

It would be nice if he would be a little more open minded about people he doesn't know personally. It may be that the folks at the DI are as honest as he is in regard to what they support.

Larry Fafarman said...

Jon Voisey said,
>>>>>> Interestingly enough however, his Discovery Institute publication list doesn’t feature a single one published in a respected astronomical journal. Perhaps they wish to hide the fact that much of his work deals with stellar evolution (specifically post main sequence stars) from the young earth contingency that makes up so much of the ID crowd? <<<<<<

People who are not trained astronomers would not notice that "much of his work deals with stellar evolution (specifically post main sequence stars) from the young earth contingency that makes up so much of the ID crowd." So your reasoning that the Discovery Institute is trying to hide something is very faulty.

Bill said...

ftk, the point is, like the little point on the top of your brainless head, is that the DI did not have any of Gonzalez's publications listed prior, PRIOR, i.e. Before, as in advance to, Jon's posting.

So, in the end Jon is Right and you, ftk, are Wrong as usual.

Ftk: forego the knowledge

Anonymous said...

Do your homework, Jon. Here is a list of Dr. Gonzalez' published, peer reviewed papers:

http://www.google.com/accounts/VE?c=3821796119902886143&hl=en

Anonymous said...

Correction, the list of his published papers is here:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1362

Joe G said...

Does anyone else think it is dishonest to say that the Earth/ Moon system formed from some accidental giant impactor colliding with the proto-Earth? (especially given there isn't any data to support such a thing)

Dr Gonzalez became an IDist because of the scientific data. Nothing can change that fact.

The scientific data says we exist. There is only one reality behind that existence. And if we aren't here by design, what, exactly, are the options- besides sheer dumb luck (like the Earth/ Moon system explanation)?

Jon Voisey said...

Dear Anon,

Please do your reading instead of just being a good little DI drone. It's quite obvious that you came here to spam my blog without even reading what I wrote, given that I already had a list of Gonzalez's publications.

Joe: It is in no way dishonest do say that the Moon formed from a collision with the early Earth. This theory explains several features that no other theory (co accretion, captured body...) can explain.

Joe G said...

John,

The current Earth/ Moon formation scenario is untestable. It is nothing but a matter of sheer dumb luck.

And when one considers the bounty that that sheer dumb luck has brought us, the premise just seems silly. It also doesn't "explain" anything. Just because someone can come up with a good sounding narrative, that should never be mistaken for a valid explanation.

That you would cling to such a premise and reject Gonzalez just exposes your agenda.

mollishka said...

By the way, Jon, you might be interested in this take on the tenure denial.

Joe G said...

John,

The current Earth/ Moon formation scenario is untestable. It is nothing but a matter of sheer dumb luck.

And when one considers the bounty that that sheer dumb luck has brought us, the premise just seems silly. It also doesn't "explain" anything. Just because someone can come up with a good sounding narrative, that should never be mistaken for a valid explanation.

That you would cling to such a premise and reject Gonzalez just exposes your agenda.

Larry Fafarman said...

Jon Voisey said,
>>>>>> Interestingly enough however, his Discovery Institute publication list doesn’t feature a single one published in a respected astronomical journal. Perhaps they wish to hide the fact that much of his work deals with stellar evolution (specifically post main sequence stars) from the young earth contingency that makes up so much of the ID crowd? <<<<<<

People who are not trained astronomers would not notice that "much of his work deals with stellar evolution (specifically post main sequence stars) from the young earth contingency that makes up so much of the ID crowd." So your reasoning that the Discovery Institute is trying to hide something is very faulty.

Bill said...

ftk, the point is, like the little point on the top of your brainless head, is that the DI did not have any of Gonzalez's publications listed prior, PRIOR, i.e. Before, as in advance to, Jon's posting.

So, in the end Jon is Right and you, ftk, are Wrong as usual.

Ftk: forego the knowledge