Christian Biography: Scientists and Science Philosophers

[cslewislover]

To start off this sticky thread, I'll provide a summary of Alvin J. Schmidt's chapter, "Science: Its Christian Connections," that is in How Christianity Changed the World (Zondervan 2001, pp 218-247). Feel free to add posts concerning this subject, and any Christian scientists you'd like, breathing or not.


Introduction.

Science was a development from the mindset of medieval theology, and monks were the ancestors to scientists (cites AN Whitehead, L White, and E Mach). However, with the growth of secularism, and the publication of A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (AD White, 1896), educators have accepted the idea that Christianity and science are enemies. This view has been taught for so long that it's hard for people to grasp that it may not be so.

I. “Christian Presuppositions Underlying Science”

A. Christianity teaches that there is only one God, and that He is rational. Pagan religions believe in many gods. If God is rational and created us, then perhaps we can study creation as rational beings too. Thus the empirical, inductive method began. The thinkers in the 1100s-1200s saw the bible as rational and “verifiable by experience” (he refers to Franciscan bishop and Oxford chancellor Robert Grosseteste and Franciscan monks Roger Bacon and William of Occam [or Ockham]).

B. Francis Bacon (lawyer, member of Parliament, Queen's counsel), about 300 years later, emphasized careful observation and systematic collecting and recording. He recorded his experimental results, and so he is considered the creator of scientific induction. [A good source on Bacon: Francis Bacon ]

C. Aristotelianism/deductionism. Until thinkers like Grosseteste, Occam, and the Bacons came along - for a period of about 1,500 years - the Greek method of deduction, put forth by Aristotle, was the way nature was studied. We learned of the natural world by considering it with our minds. Even after the empirical inductionists gained some ground, deduction remained the dominant learning process for some time.

D. Christianity believes not only that there is one God, but that He is separate from His creation. Pagan religions, including that of Aristotle, believed there were many gods and that nature and god/the gods were intertwined. The pantheistic conception of the planets, where it was thought that the planets had their own intelligence, was first refuted by Christian philosopher Jean Buridan in the 1300s.

E. Pantheistic elements and Aristotelian philosophy were embedded in the church too, so much so that many in the church could not see it. Roger Bacon had been imprisoned for heresy. But since God is outside of creation, and we would not be being sacrilegious by manipulating it for study, there should have been no reason within Christianity for not accepting inductive research. In pagan beliefs, to experiment on a thing might result in abusing the spirit within that thing. In the bible, however, God tells man to have dominion over the earth; it is fine to study what God had made and gave us dominion over. In pagan belief, the gods were viewed as unpredictable if not irrational. Such a world could not be studied. The rationality of God in Judeo-Christian thought, however, led to the idea that the world and all creation might have discoverable laws.

II. "Christians, the Pioneers of Science"
"'From the thirteenth century onward into the eighteenth,' says Lynn White, 'every major scientist, in effect, explained his motivations in religious terms.' [Dynamo and Virgin Reconsidered: Essays in the Dynamism of Western Culture, MIT Press, 1968] But if one looks at current textbooks in science, one would never know this was true. Today virtually all references to the Christian beliefs of the early scientists is omitted. This is especially unfortunate because these convictions often played a dominant role in their scientific work" (p 222).

A. Occam's Razor. Named after William Occam (1280-1349), the principle states that "what can be done or explained with the fewest assumptions should be used, meaning that scientists need to 'shave off' all excess assumptions" (p 222). Scientists still use this today. Occam wrote theological works, and these greatly influenced Martin Luther.

B. Human Physiology and Biology.

1) Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519). Commonly known as a great painter, he was a "scientific genius" as well. He found much wrong with the prevailing knowledge of the human body by dissecting cadavers, which was basically forbidden. His meticulous drawings and notes represent a full course on human anatomy. Through his inductive study, he found that air does not get passed directly to the heart from the lungs, as had been imagined.

2) Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564). Known as the father of human anatomy, he published his Fabric of the Human Body in 1543. He found over 200 errors in the physiological writings still being used (written by the Greek, Galen, 130-200).

3) Gregor Johann Mendel (1822-1884?). Augustinian monk who wrote his findings of cross-pollinating peas, which led to the concept of genes. Whether it was due to his Christian convictions, or for other reasons, Mendel studied Darwin's theory of evolution and rejected it.

C. Astronomy. The four giants of astronomy listed below were all devout Christians.

1) Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543). Received a doctorate in Canon Law (he became a "canon" in a Prussian cathedral) and was trained as a physician. Copernicus is most known for proving that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa. This is the heliostatic theory; he was not to think of it, but Copernicus was the one to prove it. He wrote Concerning the Revolutions of the Celestial Bodies (1543). He was encouraged by his Lutheran friends to publish his work, and Lutherans helped pay for this and oversaw the printing. Martin Luther's often cited insult of Copernicus is from a very unreliable source [see the book for details].

2) Tycho Brahe (1546-1601). Often cited as important to the field of astronomy. Published Concerning the New Star (1572), amongst other things.

3) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630). IMHO, Kepler was an amazing man. Through an extreme amount of difficulties, he became one of he most well-known scientists of all time. Kepler modified and corrected aspects of Copernicus' heliostatic theory and made it the heliocentric system. He found that the planets orbit elliptically, not in perfect circles, or at uniform speed. Related to his findings about the planets, his discoveries were the first natural laws of science. He published many works, his most well-known being The New Astronomy. He was the first person to show that the moon caused the tides. Isaac Newton used an insight of his to formulate the Law of Gravity. An optical law he developed was confirmed three centuries later. Kepler discovered that our calendar was incorrect because Christ's birth year was originally miscalculated (Christ's birth was between 4 and 5 BC). All this and more he did with personal emotional suffering, financial suffering, and many serious health issues, including defective eyesight and crippled hands. He was a very devout Christian.

4) Galileo (1564-1642). The first to use the telescope to study the heavens (he did not invent the telescope, however). Found that the moon did not transmit its own light and that it had valleys and mountains, that Jupiter had four moons, that the sun had spots, and that millions of stars made up the Milky Way. [Can you imagine seeing all that the first time?] He published A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World (1632) and Dialogues on the Two New Sciences (1636).

D. Physics (Those not summarized here: Gottfried Leibniz, 1646-1716; Alessandro Volta, 1745-1827; Georg Simon Ohm, 1787-1854; and, Andre Ampere, 1775-1836).

1) Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Discovered the laws of gravity and wrote one of the most important scientific works of all time, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. He was a strong Christian, evidenced by his writings, despite what some critics have stated.

2) Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). Pascal's law states "that liquid in a container exerts equal pressures in all directions" (p 233), and developed the theory about measuring barometric pressure at varying altitudes. He invented or constructed a number of things: the syringe, hydraulic press, the first adding machine, and Pascal's triangle. He made strong defenses for the Christian faith.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867). A "fundamentalist Christian" who discovered electromagnetic induction. He was the first to achieve making a liquid from gas, and he invented the generator. In 1868 the French Academy of Science said that he was the greatest of scientists amongst its members.

William Thompson Kelvin (1824-1907). He once said that "If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to the belief in God." [The brilliant philosopher Simone Weil said something of the same thing, only she used the word "truth" instead of "science."] Kelvin was a physicist who established the absolute zero scale (which bears his name today), who "first conceptualized energy," and who founded thermodynamics.

E. Chemistry. (Not summarized here is Antoine Lavoisier, 1743-1794 and Joseph Priestly, 1733-1804.)

1) Robert Boyle (1627-1691). Called "the father of chemistry" and was the founder of the Royal Society. Very devout and evangelical christian.

2) John Dalton I1766-1844). Quaker, "father of atomic theory," and co-founder of the British Association of Advancement of Science.

3) George Washington Carver (1864?-1943). Child of slaves and humble Christian who attributed his success to God. American chemist who developed hundreds of by-products from peanuts and sweet potatoes. The Roosevelt Medal he was honored with in 1939 declared, "To a scientist humbly seeking the guidance of God . . . ." [Things have certainly changed since 1939!)

F. Medicine. (Not summarized here are William Harvey, 1578-1657); James Simpson, 1811-1870; and, Joseph Lister, 1827-1912.)

1) Paracelsus (1493-1541). Introduced the beginning of germ theory, at a time when physicians still believed disease was caused by imbalances of internal body humors. God and saints were believed to inflict diseases, but Paracelsus thought this was "nonsensical gossip."

2) Ambroise Pare (1509?-1590). Pare was the first physician to use ligatures to stop bleeding, the practice of today, instead of cauterizing the wound. He developed artificial eyes, implanted teeth, and improved artificial arms and legs. He appears to be the first physician to use the scientific method, and attributed healing to God.

3) Louis Pasteur (1822-1895). Pasteurization is named after Louis, the method he developed. He discovered bacteria and how it not only spoiled food but caused infections. He also developed the use of antiseptic. Because of all this research into bacteria, he was able to show that spontaneous generation was false, and that biogenesis was true (life can only come from life).

III. Conclusion (this is the end paragraph of Schmidt's conclusion).

"Yet, in spite of Christianity's having provided the fertile stimulus for the development of science, students in the Western world--whether in the elementary, secondary, or university classrooms--are regularly deprived by instructors and textbooks from learning and knowing about Christianity's connection to science. The tendency to omit this connection, whether in education or in the public square, began in the eighteenth century, when, as Jacques Barzun has noted, 'the marriage of science with philosophical materialism' occurred. In time this great omission became institutionalized, and thus today's students--and the public--are unaware that virtually all scientists from the Middle Ages to the mid-eighteenth century--many of whom were seminal thinkers--not only were sincere Christians but were often inspired by biblical postulates and premises in their theories that sought to explain and predict natural phenomena. These pioneering scientists, upon whose shoulders present-day scientists stand, knew and believed the words of the biblical writer: 'The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands' (Psalm 19:1). To them, God could not be factored out. And concerning their Christian faith, they echoed the words of Kepler: 'I am in earnest about Faith, and I do not play with it.' They were 180 degrees removed from the relativistic cliche of today's post-modernism that says, 'What is true for you is not true for me.' To them, truth was one, and God was its Author."


Please see the Evidence for God from Science main page for this article: Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

[zoegirl]

From a modern perspective, Francis COllins and the human genome project that wrote "The LAnguage of God" is a devout Christian.

And for an entire site of Christian scientists, check out www.asa3.org

[cslewislover]

From a modern perspective, Francis COllins and the human genome project that wrote "The LAnguage of God" is a devout Christian.

And for an entire site of Christian scientists, check out http://www.asa3.org

That's a really great site! - I had forgotten about it.

[zoegirl]

THanks for citing this, I will add this to the summer reading list.

[Kristoffer]

Christian scientist is a denomination, subst. with [scientist's that are christian]

I think Kenneth Miller should be on your list, he is a Biologist and Christian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4 That is him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

Actually, is this the thread about modern? or no but when u make that list...there is a person for it!

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Christian scientist is a denomination

Christian Scientists are part of a cult.* They are not Christian (and, somehow, I strongly doubt that any are scientists!) Other cults which claim Christianity but are not: the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

FL

*The simplest definition of a Christian cult is this: a cult will have - in addition to the Bible - another set of writings which has greater importance than the Bible, the Bible itself being seen as flawed either in its translation or in its passage through time. Mormons have the Book of Mormon which supercedes («is better than») the Bible; Witnesses have the various publications by the Watchtower Society in addition to a perverted translation of the Bible.

You may also want to check the dictionary definitions of cult and sect.

[cslewislover]

Christian scientist is a denomination, subst. with [scientist's that are christian]

I think Kenneth Miller should be on your list, he is a Biologist and Christian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4 That is him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

Actually, is this the thread about modern? or no but when u make that list...there is a person for it!

As FL wrote, Christian Scientist is a cult-denomination. I made the title so as not to confuse this thread with them.

Here's the list maintained by the Discovery Institute of scientists who have some dissension from Darwinism, if you want to see a list of scientists (I don't think all are Christian, however): A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

[Kristoffer]

Sorry, its a cult then. But you used that wordsing in your original post. Although the topic title does avoiding it

Here is a quotation I would like to give you:

[quote=Bishop Or Scientist?]"Nowadays there is nothing to debate Evolution is a fact and, from a Christian perspective, one of the greatest of God's works."[/quote]
It was a bishop!(someone called "Richard Harries")


I do not know about this, "discovery institute", but if they are supporting creationism then it has to be deception unless there is a sort of creationism that mysteriously matches evolution in certain ways...

So less, "dissent" and more "deciet", btw there are no darwinists, most Evolutionary Biologists(the proper term) are thoroughly anti-Darwinian! I think Evolution is the truth and I am also anti-darwinian, if i was being naturally selected against i would take medicine

[cslewislover]

Sorry, its a cult then. But you used that wordsing in your original post. Although the topic title does avoiding it

I could have used Christian scientist without anyone assuming I meant the "cult." Both words would need to be capitalized to imply a reference to them, as in Christian Scientist. That's one reason I didn't use that in the title, since all words were to be capitalized. Most people here would know anyway, but just so as to avoid confusion . . .

Here is a quotation I would like to give you:

"Nowadays there is nothing to debate Evolution is a fact and, from a Christian perspective, one of the greatest of God's works."

It was a bishop!(someone called "Richard Harries")

There are lots of people who say that, but, obviously, it's not a "fact." No one has seen one species change into another, and even though attempts have been made to see this - or something close - it still hasn't happened. The peppered moth study, which was such an important study that implied evolution strongly, turned out to be fraudulent. Changes do occur within species, yes, and there are lots of "close calls," but we still don't know all about it. Maybe some "species" aren't really a separate species after all. There are all kinds of considerations. There are many threads on this board about it already, too.

Just for the record, this is what is stated at the top of what all those scientists signed:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

I do not know about this, "discovery institute", but if they are supporting creationism then it has to be deception unless there is a sort of creationism that mysteriously matches evolution in certain ways...

What? They are researchers and supporters of Intelligent Design (you could read about them). As Christians, we all believe in creationism in some form or another (even Theistic Evolutionists believe in creationism, in that God is still the original creator). Maybe you should be educating yourself about this before making statements like that here. There are plenty of articles on the main site of God and Science. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.html

So less, "dissent" and more "deciet", btw there are no darwinists, most Evolutionary Biologists (the proper term) are thoroughly anti-Darwinian! I think Evolution is the truth and I am also anti-darwinian, if i was being naturally selected against i would take medicine

What? (again . . .) More deceit?? Are you simply referring to neo-Darwinism? I think Evolutionary Biologists are normally neo-Darwinists. I don't think people here would take it to mean something else, like some modern biological scientists don't go along with more modern concepts of evolution from what Darwin put forth. You should really go to a Darwin or evolution thread to discuss this . . . and explain what you mean. Lol? Naturally selected against?

[Kristoffer]

I think that you have made a good start. Although I think a paragraph each of extra in depth information would be wonderful, there is plenty of good facts about Leonardo dí¥ vinci that you could include, ja? Like that he designed a buetiful suspension bridge that was made centuries after he lived and found to be structuraly sound!

Also just because Mendal rejected darwin's theories, that doesn't make them not true. Issac newton according to a link you posted fought that Christianity had got corrupted was he right too? You can put what you want though it doesn't harm me. Also Need I point out that, His notions of Gene's where different from modern day ones, simply just a hypothesis at the time? One of course that turned out to be true! So that does make him a bit ahead of his time.

Later we discover...De-oxy Ribonucleic Acid! (Yes your body is made from acid, no it wont dissolve your body! )

[cslewislover]

One modern--that is, still living--scientist that can be added here is Charles Thaxton. Here is some info about him, taken from the Center for Science & Culture site Charles Thaxton, Fellow - CSC:

Charles Thaxton received his Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Iowa State University. He completed two post-doctoral programs, one in history of science at Harvard University and the second in the molecular biology laboratories of Brandeis University.

He has specialized in the origin of life and in science's relationship with Christianity through history.

He is co-author of The Mystery of Life's Origin and also The Soul of Science. . . . He has published technical articles in Journal of Inorganic Chemistry, Journal of Scientific Instruments, and Journal of Cell Biology.

He has lectured widely in American universities including Princeton University, Yale University, University of Michigan, University of Delaware, Rice University, Texas University, Johns Hopkins University, Vanderbilt University, and Harvard Law School. . . . He has held appointments at Slovak Technical University in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia, the Biomathematical Institute in Craiova, Romania, and at Charles University in Prague, where he was a Templeton scholar in the department of natural sciences.

He is a member of American Chemical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Fellow of American Institute of Chemistry, American Scientific Affiliation, and Discovery Institute.

. . . . He is a survivor of two bouts of cancer, which left him with one leg and one lung.


Here is a little essay he wrote, entitled "Modern Science, a Child of Christianity," in A Faith and Culture Devotional (Zondervan 2008, pp48-49).

The dominant view of reality in medieval Europe was essentially Greek as posited by Aristotle and others. This cosmology offered no motivation to investigate nature by observation and experiment. To the Greeks, reality consisted of forms and essences, not material things; therefore, observing "what is" was less important than reasoning "what ought to be." To the Greeks, nature was eternal and self-existent, not created. It was also imbued with attributes of divinity and not to be tested or acted upon.

Late medieval Christianity's greater familiarity with Scripture began to emphasize the doctrine of creation. Through the advent of the printing press, the ideas of Scripture were widely disseminated. People discovered that both Testaments regarded the material world as substantial, real, and good. Scripture valued sensory experience. The Hebrews had an empirical test for identifying a false prophet. Saint John introduced his first epistle with an empirical emphasis describing their reports of Jesus: "We have heard," We have seen with our eyes," "Our hands have touched." Jesus said to the doubting ones after his resurrection, "Touch me and see."

A created world is contingent upon the will of the Creator and need not necessarily conform to a priori reasoning. Thus scientists began to emphasize observation using the five senses and experiment in order to gain new knowledge. Philosopher Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626) set out to reformulate scientific method to give the empirical, inductive process a more central place. (Not until the end of the seventeenth century would Isaac Newton reach a new understanding of physical reality.)

The voyages of discovery in the fifteenth century not only opened up New World trade routes, they gave further proof that ancient knowledge was both incomplete and often wrong. Explorers like Magellan contradicted the ancients by experience. They, for example, did not fall off the edge of the earth when sailing uncharted waters.

In 1572, a new star appeared in the skies over Europe that remained visible for a year and a half, even in the daytime, hovering above the moon. Because the Greek system viewed the heavens as changeless, some of the learned professors refused to acknowledge the new star, calling it an optical illusion. But for everyone else it was clear evidence the old system was in trouble.

Copernicus had taken the first bold step, refashioning the cosmic picture. He put the sun at the center in his system, thus making Earth one of the planets. Later Kepler would discover that the orbits were elliptical.

By the end of the seventeenth century, Newton had synthesized the work of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo by achieving a unity of heaven and earth, with the same substances in the heavens and earth, all equally subject to mathematical analysis. Newton banished the Aristotelian terrestrial/celestial dichotomy that had dominated intellectual thought for nearly two thousand years.

The modern scientific enterprise was now ready to explore by the senses, combined with mathematics as well as the structure and operation of the universe. The Christian belief in a loving and brilliant Creator, and marvelous creation, inspired this new form of inquiry. As for my own study, I concur with physicist D.F. Von Weizsacker's conclusion that modern science is a "legacy," I might even have said "a child, of Christianity."

[cslewislover]

Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez is an amazing scientist, who has gone through some amazingly silly stuff (persecution). He now holds a position at Grove City College. Here is biographical information about him from the Discovery Institute website. Since it's written well, and short & sweet, I didn't see a reason to rewrite it myself.


Biography of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
May 14, 2007

Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez is [was] an Assistant Professor of Astronomy at Iowa State University (ISU).

Born in Havana, he and his family fled from Cuba to the United States in 1967, where he earned a Ph.D. in Astronomy from the University of Washington in 1993. Author of nearly 70 peer-reviewed scientific papers and co-author of a major college-level astronomy textbook, Dr. Gonzalez's work led to the discovery of two new planets, and he has had his research featured in Science, Nature, and on the cover of Scientific American.

Dr. Gonzalez's Scientific Research

In late 1995, Dr. Gonzalez began working on a series of projects examining stars with planets to see what sorts of properties they exhibited. This has been a major part of Dr. Gonzalez's scientific research, and he has published twelve articles in peer-reviewed science journals on the subject and continues to research new planets and systems. Dr. Gonzalez's research in this area led to he and his associate researchers discovering what is known as the Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ), a term Dr. Gonzalez coined. Our star, the Sun, is one of the few stars in the Galaxy capable of supporting complex life. The sun is composed of the right amount of “metals,” and its orbit about the galactic center is just right. Our solar system is also far enough away from the galactic center to not have to worry about disruptive gravitational forces or too much radiation. When all of these factors occur together, they create a region of space now known as a Galactic Habitable Zone. Dr. Gonzalez believes every form of life on our planet—from the simplest bacteria to the most complex animal—owes its existence to the balance of these unique conditions. Dr. Gonzalez has also made novel contributions by developing the idea of the moon as “Earth's lunar attic,” where the moon may serve as a repository for meteorites that came originally from earth or other nearby planets. Dr. Gonzalez views the moon as a museum for the history of our solar system, and further exploration could yield great insight into our planet's own history. His work has lead to feature stories in Science and Nature, two of the world's premiere scientific publications. And he and his associates wrote a cover story about GHZ in Scientific American.

Dr. Gonzalez's Book on Intelligent Design

In 2004, Dr.Gonzalez co-authored the book The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, which presents empirical evidence for the hypothesis that the universe is the product of intelligent design. Supported by a research grant from the Templeton Foundation, the book has earned praise from such eminent scientists as David Hughes, a Vice-President of the Royal Astronomical Society, Harvard astrophysicist Owen Gingerich, and Cambridge paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris. The Privileged Planet was developed into a documentary and shown on PBS stations around the country.

Attacks on Dr. Gonzalez's Academic Freedom

After the release of Privileged Planet, ISU religious studies professor Hector Avalos—faculty advisor to the campus Atheist and Agnostic Society—began publicly campaigning against Dr. Gonzalez and his work. Although Dr. Gonzalez had never introduced intelligent design into his classes, Avalos helped spearhead a faculty petition urging “all faculty” at ISU to “uphold the integrity of our university” by “reject[ing] efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.” Avalos later conceded to a local newspaper that Gonzalez was the key motive for the petition. The logical conclusion of this campaign against Dr. Gonzalez came in the spring of 2007 when ISU President Gregory Geoffroy denied Dr. Gonzalez's application for tenure.

Key Facts about Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez

* He has authored 68 peer-reviewed scientific articles in refereed science journals.
* He is an author of Observational Astronomy, second edition (2006), a college-level astronomy textbook published by Cambridge University Press (authors: D. Scott Birney, G. Gonzalez and D. Oesper).
* His work has been cited in Science, Nature and many other scientific journals. All told, there were nearly 1,500 citations to his articles and research in science journals by the end of 2005.
* His research led to the discovery of 2 new planets.
* He is building new technology to discover extrasolar planets.
* He served on the NASA Astrobiology Institute Review Panel in June 2003, and the National Science Foundation Advanced Technologies and Instruments review panel in January 2005.
* He has served as a referee for Astronomical Journal, Astronomy & Astrophysics, Astrophysical Journal (and Letters), Icarus, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Nature, Naturwissenschaften, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Origins of Life and Evolution Biospheres and Science.

Key Facts about Tenure Process at Iowa State University

* According to ISU's Department of Physics and Astronomy, “[f]or promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals. (Physics and Astronomy Procedures and Promotion and Tenure Policy and Procedure, emphasis added, page 4.)
* Having produced 68 refereed scientific papers, Dr. Gonzalez has exceeded his own department's standard for “excellence” in research by more than 350%.

[I've known persons that have gotten tenure with faaaaaaarrrrrrrrr less than this; anything like this amount of productivity would result in automatic tenure. More about him and the tenure battle can be seen here: Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez And Academic Persecution

[Kristoffer]

That's not persecution. Earth has coincidentally and maybe been guided toward a privileged position, but to believe that the universe is made for life is preposterous, What percentage of the universe can humans live in again? Oh yea![Edit! Sorry for mocking tone!] The answer is so close to zero that it might as well BE zero! The universe is totally Inhospitable to life! and yet we are here.

Seeing Design in Evolution is a laugh, it doesn't create design, it creates Designoid objects. Evolution does do one thing wonderfully though, it makes life extremely well developed. Consider how much time has been spent just for our own existance to happen? Million, if not billions of years went into the arrangement of DNA into a life form that we call Humans.

Also you might want to look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_ ... ure_denial

TL;DR:
...Hauptman states clearly that Gonzalez's work falls far short of what scientists know to be science, containing not one single number, not one single measurement or test of any kind...Gonzalez's failure to obtain research funding has been cited as a factor in the decision. "Essentially, he had no research funding,"...

[cslewislover]

Lol, I totally disagree with you on all fronts. You really ought to open your mind instead of being on the evolution-directs-all bandwagon (as if evolution could actually CREATE life! evolution is not a process that starts life).

And yes, tone it down. We have brains just like you, and we find your view and data unconvincing (besides that, I don't think you even know what people believe about it here, about evolution and ID, and how they might be related, or not).

Besides that, are you so prejudiced that you think a professor ought to be fired for his personal beliefs? Did you not see all the refereed journal articles he had published? Those are scientific journals, not ones that deal with belief.

[Kristoffer]

(as if evolution could actually CREATE life! evolution is not a process that starts life)...
And yes, tone it down. We have brains just like you...and we find your view and data unconvincing...
Besides that, are you so prejudiced that you think a professor ought to be fired for his personal beliefs? Did you not see all the refereed journal articles he had published? Those are scientific journals, not ones that deal with belief.

No, Evolution can not create life. No Evolution can not create universes No evolution can not create Solar Systems, Evolution only explains one specific thing, to be against it so much, you might as well be up against the Laws of Physics that Newton discovered, You can not see gravity! Is it real?

Also I have never seen your brain, lets assume that it exists

No I do not think he should of been fired based on a kind of discrimination, but according to the Wikipedia article there were other reasons.(like being unable to obtain funding for one thing...do you know how important funding is for research projects?)

Anyway, try actually looking at the source I cite rather than skimming past it in a Hurry, have some patience and you may well see something without your bias.(we all have one)

I AM prejudiced.... Against prejudicial prejudice