Earlier this year, after much controversy and discussion, Assistant Professor of physics and astronomy Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure at Iowa State. While the decision was clear and logical, some still question and even harass the issue. The Discovery Institute, an organization that supports the theories of intelligent design, has now published faculty e-mails from the last few years in order to prove that the denial was malicious and unethical.

After pulling quotes out of context and publishing a decree of ill intention on the part of the university, the Discovery Institute has come up with the following evidence to support their conspiracy theory:

Gonzalez’s colleagues were mean in their approach to intelligent design while talking among themselves, and later decided this wouldn’t help their case. Also, his department chairman falsely claimed the tenure decision was not based solely on Gonzalez’s views on intelligent design. Lastly, the department rejected some recommendations from outside sources to grant Gonzalez tenure.

The organization’s goal here is to prove that the university acted either illegally or unethically through religious discrimination or restriction of their principles of academic freedom. But the university participated in neither insinuated activity.

E-mails on the Discovery Institute’s Web site quote other professors condemning and ridiculing Gonzalez for his views on intelligent design, yes. What they leave out is the fact that the ridicule is not based on Gonzalez’s personal spiritual beliefs about religion, but his insistence that this religion is a science. In a science department, no less.

For instance, quoted e-mails state that Gonzalez’s ideas about ID were “intellectually vacuous,” and that “embalming is more of a science.” Making fun of somebody behind his back and logically invalidating his claims in the meantime may be mean, but not illegal. Their intolerance is not of a religious nature, but of an academic and scientific one.

Some faculty members tried to stop the smack talk with verifications that continuing it would hurt their valid reasoning in the future. Some also claimed they felt bad because discussion without confronting Gonzalez was “not nice.” It’s not a crime to discuss the disadvantages, holes and irrationality in somebody else’s argument.

Nevertheless, the actual intention of the tenure denial is never disproven. In fact, the Web site quotes a valid reason to deny tenure five times. That reason is that a department that bases its research, teachings and future on an academic course of proven scientific methods cannot support or promote someone who clearly disregards the principles of science in his judgments and decisions. Department Chairman Eli Rosenberg said it best himself: “The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.”

In general, and more specifically in the case of the theory of intelligent design, religious theories are not compatible with science. They cannot be based on existing observable science, be experimented on or be tested to reach any conclusions. In past examples, when humanity has used religion to explain a phenomenon, science has later trumped their explanations with fact and theory, still effective to this day. We are past sacrificing virgins to volcanoes. Science progresses toward an answer, and religion only asks questions.

Intelligent design, a moniker for creationism, has continually been rejected by peer-reviewed scientific journals, established scientific individuals and groups, and even one of its main supporters. Michael Behe, who coined the term “irreducible complexity” – the main idea that supports the theory of intelligent design on a scientific basis – later rescinded his argument, admitting that it was illogical. The U.S. Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard decided that teaching creationism in a public school was unconstitutional. Later, another district judge declared, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, that intelligent design was not a science, but a view on creationism, and therefore violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Why is anybody standing for this continual, foot-dragging attempt to make a martyr of an issue that already has a solution? Thankfully, the Board of Regents has rejected these irrelevant e-mails as evidence proving a lack of valid reasoning for the tenure denial.

The Discovery Institute and Gonzalez have collectively jumped the shark. They ruin their own arguments with their stubbornness and irrationality. Yet, they continue to seek tons of media attention, hoping that pressing the issue will get people to change their minds.

Gonzalez, who wouldn’t speak to the press previously about the issue, appeared on Fox News to explain his predicament and appeal to the masses. In the process, he claimed people were uncomfortable with and biased against the idea of the supernatural basis that intelligent design relies on, yet contradicted himself in explaining that the basis of the theory was unclear as being natural or supernatural, anyway.

Despite all the claims against the university and its staff, Gonzalez has remained here for the duration of the debate. If he had been harassed or ridiculed during his many years here, he could’ve reported it then. Trying to discredit or attack the character of other professors now is just a baseless attempt to pressure the Board of Regents into agreeing that “meanness” warrants his tenure approval.

Their statement provides absolutely no evidence that Gonzalez should be validated – it offers proof of a decision well made. If, for any reason, one could still believe that he was discriminated against or targeted unfairly, there are at least two valid reasons to deny him anyway: He does not support science or academia in his theories, and allowing him to do this at a public school would be unconstitutional. I’d say that just the fact that his goals negate the principles of science, and therefore academic institutions at large, make Gonzalez a fair target.

– Luci Van Scoy is a junior in anthropology from Newton.

For additional information regarding this topic, please see the following Daily articles:

Organization attacks ruling to deny tenure

Gonzalez tenure fight continues

Professor denied tenure appeals to regents