An ISU professor and supporter of Intelligent Design has expressed his disappointment with a national organization after it said the theory is not scientific.

“I’m certainly very disappointed with the AAUP,” said Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor of physics and astronomy and co-author of the book “The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery.”

“Especially when this is supposed to be an organization that encourages scientific exploration and thought.”

In a letter sent to the Daily by the American Association of University Professors, Roger Bowen, general secretary for the organization, applauded ISU faculty members who signed a letter in August rejecting Intelligent Design as a credible scientific theory and also expressed concern that the debate over Intelligent Design may pose a threat to academic freedom in the near future. In the AAUP’s letter, dated Sept. 15, Bowen congratulated ISU faculty for their “willingness to take a public stand on an issue of vital importance to the scientific community, to the academy and to society as a whole.”

By resisting external interference in a matter of scientific expertise, the letter said, “these faculty members have defended the academic freedom of all their colleagues in the professoriate.”

In a telephone interview, Bowen said “external interference” refers to political pressure to teach Intelligent Design in schools and universities as an alternative to evolution. Intelligent Design is a view of humanity that suggests human life is much too complex for it to have evolved without the direction of some kind of intelligent being. Gonzalez expressed frustration with the AAUP’s stance on the theory being taught in classrooms.

He defended the scientific credibility of Intelligent Design, explaining the idea has nothing to do with religion.

“It is a scientific theory,” Gonzalez said. “It is not faith-based or religion-based. To say that it is faith-based is an outright lie.”

He said rejecting Intelligent Design as a scientific theory poses the greatest threat to academic freedom.

“This debate can have a negative effect on scientific freedom when the effort to win the debate amounts to censorship,” Gonzalez said.

Hector Avalos, associate professor of religious studies and a strong opponent of Intelligent Design, said he agrees with the AAUP’s stance on Intelligent Design.

“The AAUP has taken a courageous step,” Avalos said. “Previously, I wasn’t a member of the group, but I joined because of the letter.”

He said he supports the AAUP’s attempts to uphold academic freedom in the nation’s universities.

“The organization has always been one of the most vocal advocates for academic freedom,” Avalos said. “It’s encouraging that they know this isn’t science and shouldn’t be presented as such.”

Avalos said he and other Intelligent Design opponents hope to organize a forum where the subject can be discussed systematically by those qualified to discuss it.

“My concern is that we have politicians acting as if they’re academics,” he said. “When you have politicians suggesting that Intelligent Design should be taught alongside evolution, that’s ignorance of science and scientific thinking.”

Bowen said allowing Intelligent Design to gain acceptance as a scientific theory would pose a threat to scientists and academics everywhere.

“The history of academic freedom has always been one of tension in America,” he said. “Eighty years after the Scopes Trial allowed evolution to be taught in classrooms, we’ve returned to the same debate. Academics should be allowed to teach science in their classrooms without having to worry about interference.”

Bowen said the AAUP’s stance on Intelligent Design is not meant to demean religion, and he supports Intelligent Design discussions as long as they take place in religion and philosophy classes.