…and this is a 
Avalos responds
Category: Creationism
Posted on: May 24, 2007 8:05 AM, by PZ Myers
Hector Avalos himself, the target of a Discovery Institute smear campaign, left a comment here, replying to some of the DI's many falsehoods. It's worth promoting up top.
The Discovery Institute has mounted the latest in a long string of creationist smear campaigns against me in Iowa. While I have never called for Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez to be fired, or even to be denied tenure, there are plenty of creationists who blatantly direct our university to fire me.
All such efforts have failed because they clearly distort the facts and my academic record. Here are some of the most significant questions and distortions voiced in these attacks:
1. Avalos is not a scientist, and so cannot critique ID
I have a formal degree and a year of graduate work in anthropology, which is home to the study of human evolution. The study of human evolution is a legitimate scientific field. I have published numerous articles on science and religion.Nature and Science also have recognized my expertise in the area of science and religion in a number of news articles. See, for example, my quoted comments on scientific studies or prayer in Science, 276 (1997): p. 359; and on religion and violence in Nature 446 (March 8, 2007), p. 115.
ID is regarded by virtually all scientists and scholars of religion to be a theological argument, and I have the training to evaluate theological arguments. I have a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in biblical and Near Eastern Studies from Harvard.
I may not be an astronomer, but my article, "Heavenly Conflicts: The Bible and Astronomy," passed the editorial review of Mercury: The Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 27 no. 2 (March/April, 1998), pages 20-24. There, I critiqued fine-tuning arguments before I even heard of Gonzalez.
The Astronomical Society of the Pacific is the SAME organization that has published, via a sister publication (Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific), some of the work of Guillermo Gonzalez.
So the irony is that it is the scholar of religion whose work passed the editorial review of a legitimate astronomical organization, and it is the astronomer who has not published a refereed article on ID in an astronomical journal.
2. Avalos's book, Fighting Words, blames the Jewish people for the Holocaust
This is an outright canard. I see the Holocaust as the synthesis of many factors. But I place much of the responsibility on a long Christian history of anti-Judaism. I explicitly (Fighting Words, pp, 195-96) say that Hitler's plan is an updating of Martin Luther's famous seven-point plan for the Jews.This outrages creationists because they have long held that evolutionary theory led to the Holocaust (e.g., Richard Weikart's biased and grossly uninformed From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany [New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004]). I show that every major feature of Holocaust had a long religious history that predated Darwin.
That some authors of the Hebrew Bible (1 Samuel 15, Deuteronomy 7) advocate genocide is a well-known fact recognized by nearly all Christian and Jewish scholars, and not a statement against Judaism or an effort to blame the Jews for the Holocaust.
Moreover, Jewish scholars who have reviewed Fighting Words have viewed it positively. Note these comments about Fighting Words by Prof. Martin Jaffee of the University of Washington:
"Hector Avalos (of Iowa State), joins the conversation with a lucid, provocative, and deeply disturbing study of the role of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in fostering the conditions necessary to liberate human ingenuity in the services of unspeakable acts of carnage."Source: Comparative Religion (A Publication of...The University of Washington (2005-2006), p. 3 (http://jsis.washington.edu/religion/46756.CompRel.NL.pdf)
Finally, perhaps the DI should also note that I have also been a member of the Jewish Studies Committee at Iowa State for many years. My doctoral research won a dissertation grant from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture.
3. How can Avalos, an atheist, teach courses on the Bible and religion?
Unlike learning Bible in Sunday School classes, courses on the Bible in public universities are descriptive not prescriptive.We study what people believe about the Bible, and not what people should believe. We report what different viewpoints (including Christian, Jewish, and secular) say ABOUT the Bible, without forcing students to believe in any viewpoint.
Such pedagogy is premised on the idea that a professor can objectively describe what other people believe about their religion. If that were not the case, then Christians could never teach about the religion of anyone else in a public university either.
My ability to be objective has been validated by the fact that I was named Professor of the Year at Iowa State in 1996, after being nominated by CHRISTIAN students. I was named Master Teacher in 2003-04. I usually receive some of the highest, if not the highest, teaching evaluations in my department, and most of the students are Christians.
And while pro-ID advocates make much of the fact that Dr. Gonzalez supposedly promotes ID only outside the classroom, they always erroneously assert that I promote secular humanism inside the classroom.
In addition, some of my books and articles have been published by well-recognized Christian presses, including Abingdon Press, Hendrickson Press, and Eerdmans (Dictionary of the Bible).
4. Avalos is too anti-religious to teach in Iowa
The Discovery Institute will first have to convince a number of churches who have invited me to speak with the full knowledge that I am an atheist.My lectures based on Fighting Words and on other topics have been delivered, by invitation, at the following Christian churches in Iowa:
Collegiate United Methodist Church, Ames, Iowa, February 15, 2007
West Des Moines United Methodist Church, January 7, 2007
Westminster Presbyterian Church (Des Moines), November 7, 2006
Bethesda Lutheran Church, Ames, IA, December 7, 2003
Unitarian Fellowship, Ames, IA, November 10, 2002Open-minded Christians do want to hear an alternative viewpoint from me, and we have had many constructive discussions.
If I am not anti-religious enough to be speaking in churches, why am I too anti-religious for public universities?
5. Avalos spearheaded an atheist plot in Iowa
Not true. Any success against ID in Iowa has come because we have assembled a coalition that cuts across religious lines, and includes Christians, Jews, Hindus, and secularists. They all recognize that being against ID is to be against pseudo-science, and not to be against religion.Christians can recognize that, even if God exists, there are bad arguments for the existence of God (and ID is one of them).
Pro-ID forces in Iowa can usually muster only fundamentalists, who write letters in the local papers defending ID with biblical passages. Thus, these letter writers only expose the fact that ID is a religious position, and not a scientific one.
The Discovery Institute has only itself to blame for its string of defeats in academia and in court. The DI underestimated Iowans who know the difference between science and religion. And these smear tactics will not help the DI with those who know my academic record best.
Comments
Quoting: "Such pedagogy is premised on the idea that a professor can objectively describe what other people believe about their religion. If that were not the case, then Christians could never teach about the religion of anyone else in a public university either."
Taken 1 step further: If science is just another religion, as some creationists argue, then "Christians" could never teach science classes at university, either!
Posted by: Phingyonomous | May 24, 2007 8:15 AM
Hearing the IDiots going on about one of their folks at Iowa State (Gonzalez, obviously) always made me slightly embarrassed for my alma mater. Now the fact that Physics has denied tenure to Gonzalez, and Religious Studies has offered it to Professor Avalos, that I can renew my pride in ISU. (I took a couple classes in RelStud, but never had Prof. Avalos.)
Posted by: MAJeff | May 24, 2007 8:24 AM
I wonder if the ID folks realize that they've effectively made it nearly impossible for Gonzales to ever achieve tenure at any major university with the way they've cried and messed their diaper over this. I could be wrong but I seriously doubt that anyone other than some low rent bible college is going to want to touch him with a ten foot pole.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 24, 2007 8:32 AM
I'm liking this Avalos guy even more, now.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | May 24, 2007 9:04 AM
"Such pedagogy is premised on the idea that a professor can objectively describe what other people believe about their religion. If that were not the case, then Christians could never teach about the religion of anyone else in a public university either."
Considering the vast differences you can find in the not-monolithic Christian sphere, I'd go a step further and say Christianity can't be taught at all. Mormons, Catholics, Mennonites, Unitarians, Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses... Oh my! What a disparate group...
Posted by: Moses | May 24, 2007 9:11 AM
He responds to wild attacks on his intellect, personality, ethics and judgement with a clear, sober, rational, well-constructed and convincing argument.
I wish I had half his skills, the bastard!
Posted by: csrster | May 24, 2007 9:16 AM
Aren't you going to accuse Avalos for being an apologist, speaking at churches and having open, positive discussion with the ignorant believers? I bet he didn't even berate them or tell them how stupid they are or anything. Pussy.
Posted by: no1uno | May 24, 2007 9:17 AM
Outstanding response.
Posted by: J-Dog | May 24, 2007 9:20 AM
Could you possibly be any more off base, no1uno? I've spoken at churches, and have had conversations with Christians. There's a difference between slamming the door and refusing to speak, and having an actual argument on issues that divide us.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 24, 2007 9:29 AM
Over on the other thread, I've asked for links to the actual DI smears. This is the sort of thing I'd like to use to demonstrate to some uniformed folk I've been in discussion with on another forum the low and duplicitous ways of the cdesign proponentists, but I'd want to have links for the smears so they can't claim Prof Avalos is making up strawmen.
Posted by: Mike | May 24, 2007 9:48 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | May 24, 2007 9:49 AM
An excellent post - deserves to be read widely.
Posted by: Jack Krebs | May 24, 2007 9:51 AM
Dr. Avalos is officially my hero for the next week, when he shall assume the title from Christopher Hitchens.
Posted by: Traffic Demon | May 24, 2007 10:02 AM
PZ, I retract my statement. I admit I really don't know in detail the views of those you have previously derided as 'apologists'. I am guessing I WAS way off base.
Posted by: no1uno | May 24, 2007 10:09 AM
At one time, one aspect of tenure was that the professor not bring unwelcome attention to the university. Ironically, this was at a time in history when certain political viewpoints could get you into hot water with older department heads. (heck, it still goes; look at the price Juan Cole has paid over time for daring to speak unpopular facts)
I am just wondering what is Gonzalez thinking, to let the DI gang get embroiled in this? One rejection does not mean he will not be up for tenure again and even if he never gets tenure at ISU, there are other universities. If his light shines as brightly as DI claims, he should be getting job offers on a daily basis from other universities. The connection with DI will give any search committee, save at Liberty or Bob Jones or Regency, great pause.
Posted by: entlord | May 24, 2007 10:12 AM
I admit that the mental image of PZ in full pirate regalia standing before the pulpit in a crowded church is amusing. I see him proudly waiting for the crowd to hush down to hear what he has to say, and then... "you're all stupid!" and walking out.
Come on, its a funny picture, even if you would never actually do it.
Posted by: Robert | May 24, 2007 10:38 AM
Yet another example of the way the DI conducts their affairs, which is sickening. I saw yesterday that even Nature news has picked up on the Gonzales issue and ran a piece about it.
Posted by: Dan Gaston | May 24, 2007 10:48 AM
1. Avalos is not a scientist, and so cannot critique ID
Oh, oh, Mr. Avalos, may I play this game with you? So many brilliant ploys! "Casey Luskin is not a scientist and so cannot promote ID." "Philip Johnson is not a scientist and so cannot promote ID." "William Dembski is not a scientist[*] and so cannot promote ID." And on and on and on.
I think we should shout this from the rooftops every time one of these maroons opens his mouth: by your own standards you're forbidden to comment on such matters. We should add that to our collection of rhetorical brass knuckles.
[*]Dembski is a mathematician. The relationship between mathematics and science can be debated forever, but if we're going to play the DI's game we should be willing to fall on the side of the debate that is most congenial to our needs of the moment.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | May 24, 2007 11:02 AM
Thanks for promoting Avalos's comments. You have made your web log an effective and widely read soapbox... so no doubt Avalos has a larger (and more eager) audience than if he had posted this on his own web page.
Well played PZ. And nice comment Prof. Avalos.
Posted by: sdh | May 24, 2007 11:05 AM
I'm with Bronze Dog and others here, Hector Avalos is (as quoted to-date in this blog) very impressive!
Posted by: blf | May 24, 2007 11:05 AM
Don't think they want him either, actually.
Posted by: MartinM | May 24, 2007 11:17 AM
I could be wrong but I seriously doubt that anyone other than some low rent bible college is going to want to touch him with a ten foot pole.
That may be part of the DI's intent, whether or not they admit it to themselves: get GG so thoroughly discredited that he'll have no choice but to join the ID camp, so they can then bask in his credentials and reinforce their "persecution of ID 'scientists'" script.
Question: how actively is GG himself involved in the DI's "defense" of him?
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 24, 2007 11:19 AM
Mike,
Continuing in the tradition that pro-evolution sites always link to the evidence, even when it's unpalatable (not because it's erroneous, but just because it's gross), you can find Avalos's claims 2, 4, and 5 backed up here: Iowa State promotes Atheist professor who equated Mein Kampf with the Bible, from DI press mill Evolution News & Views.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | May 24, 2007 11:22 AM
Avalos is not a scientist, and so cannot critique ID
That rule would completely depopulate UD. First to go: Springer and O'Leary.
Oh, I forgot: you have to be a scientist before you can condemn ID, but you don't have to be a scientist to argue in favor of ID. Gotcha.
Further proof that ID is nothing more than religious apologetics is how the promotion of martyrs and creation of villains has always been the cornerstone of their movement. Have to do something to keep busy when you're a 'scientific' movement that doesn't do science...
Posted by: George Cauldron | May 24, 2007 11:31 AM
Unfortunately for Gonzalez and the DI, his denial of tenure has nothing to do with his belief in ID. It is based on the fact that he has not demonstrated that he is a capable independent scientific researcher. One of the main criteria for getting promoted is that you have to establish that you have the ability to run a productive, _independent_ research program. The publication list, so touted by the DI, actually shows a serious problem. The first thing you have to do is to look to what he has published independent of his grad school (Wallerstein) and post-doc (Lambert) advisers. Looking at what he has published since 2002 (about the time he got to ISU), there are only 12 publications without his advisers. Moreover, a good chunk of those papers look to be based on new results, and are basically an assessment/organization of what others have done. For example, papers such as
"Indium abundance trends in Sun-like stars" and
"Condensation Temperatures trends among stars with planets"
that he published in "Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society" are probably not new research papers, but are commmentaries on what others have discovered. In fact, I don't know much about the journal, but given that he has lots of papers like that in that journal, my interpretation is that they are probably all of that style. While they are contributions to the field, they do not indicate his ability to discover great new things about the universe.
There are other publications like that, such as "Habitable Zones in the Universe" published in Origins of Life and Evoluation of Biospheres, that are summaries or reviews of other work, and do not constitute original work. In the end, it looks like there are at best 4 reasonable papers.
1) A review in Reviews of Modern Physics. I'll grant that one, it's a top journal
2) "A re-evaluation of the Super Li-rich star J37 in NGC 6633" in Astrophys J
3) "Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets VII..." in Astron J
4) "Reseeding of Early Earth by Impacts of Returning Ejecta..." in Icarus (maybe - but lacking no reason to discount it at this time)
Paper (2) is probably based on their own observations, but is looking at something someone else has done, and does not indicate a lot of creativity. Paper 3 is probably based on their own observations, but then again, it is a collaboration of a lot of workers, and it is not clear how much of Gonzalez's ISU work was included (although it is worth mentioning that it includes an ISU undergrad - Walker, in the author list)
So that is the extent of his scholarly activity. Basically no new observations, no cutting edge results.
Moreover, the publication list reveals a bigger problem: telescope time. In order for an astronomer to do anything worthwhile, they have to have telescope time to look at the stars. We can see from Gonzalez's publications that he basically doesn't have any telescope time. The only observations he is apparently getting is in collaboration either with his old advisers, or with C Laws, who works with the telescope at UWash, where Gonzalez was in grad school. A productive astronomer is going to have to get lots of telescope time to do the types of observations they want to do. You can't achieve this by relying on the moments of free time available on your old grad school scope. You need to be writing proposals to secure time at any facility that will have you. Apparently, he hasn't been successful at this. Why would the department tenure an astronomer who hasn't demonstrated an ability to get access to a telescope? Given this, and his lack of productivity in general, I would be surprised if he has any other research funding, either.
Lastly, it's really hard to sustain a research program without graduate students. As far as I can tell, he hasn't graduated any grad students. In fact, his actions are consistent with that. His papers in that "Monthly Notices..." are typical of the types of things that old professors do when they have run out of funding and grad students and they are trying to make themselves look productive. However, this is not the kind of productivity that one looks for in an assistant professor.
So, to summarize: they guy has had no significant research discoveries in his independent career, isn't able to get telescope time to do observations (convincing C Laws to look at some stuff now and again is not a career), and doesn't have a sustained research group. On what basis do you promote him?
Notice I have said nothing about his belief in ID. He fails on his own merits.
Posted by: Pablo | May 24, 2007 11:35 AM
To nitpick one particular point (assuredly not a crucial one) from Dr. Avalos's comment:
The "Unitarian Fellowship" in Ames (actually the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Ames - http://www.uufames.org/ ) is, like the vast majority of congregations within the national Unitarian Universalist Association, not a "Christian church." As its members page ( http://www.uufames.org/members.html ) states, among the Fellowship's parishioners are "Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, humanists, atheists, and many others." Indeed, Unitarian Universalism has not been a Christian entity since the Association was born in a merger in 1961. Christians have been a minority within the UUA since day one, and believers in the supernatural only amount to a tiny handful. (UU Christianity--indeed, UU theism--is extremely liberal, for better and for worse; almost all Christian and/or theist UUs contend that theirs is a non-supernatural God. As far as I can tell, Dawkins' term "Einsteinian religion" describes these folks' ideas fairly well.)I'm a UU (though not an Iowan), and I'm as atheist as anyone--check out my posts in the original Avalos thread. I'm also an enthusiastic fan of PZ, Dawkins, Harris and company. I'm guessing I'm going to like Fighting Words a lot.
So please don't make the mistake of thinking that all (or even a consensus of) Unitarian Universalists are Christians or supernaturalists. There is definitely a longstanding struggle within UUism that bears significant similarities to the conciliation-vs.-activism battle often witnessed on this blog, but the "activist atheist" side includes plenty of UUs--including, I suspect, at least a few at the Fellowship in Ames.
Posted by: Rieux | May 24, 2007 11:44 AM
Rieux:
I'm glad to hear that activist atheists are well-represented in UU. I've been to a couple of meetings, where I have been upfront about where I stand. At the same time, I've heard once or twice from a theist that "the atheists at my UU church aren't nasty, etc", so I wasn't sure how well I went over there. I'm glad I will not have to choose between having a community and voicing my strong opinions.
Posted by: Citizen | May 24, 2007 11:52 AM
Excellent pushback.
I really don't have much to add, other than lauding your defense. Too frequently, we see people shrink back when attacked, and you didn't. For every point, you have an excellent rebuttal that can only leave them mumbling.
They mostly mumble anyway, but your rebuttal can only make that worse.
Keep it up. I never heard of you before this episode, and now, you have more support than you ever imagined.
Posted by: MikeM | May 24, 2007 11:55 AM
But the possible result is that now any Pro-ID professor is going to be associated with their actions. Whether or not belief and promotion of ID (the promotion is the important part) is a criteria that is being used to judge the competency of a candidate, their unwarranted public romper-room styled temper tantrum is probably going to be in the back of the minds of people who make these decisions on the campuses of Universities. This display of their 3rd grade persecution complex and the resulting hubbub will not be a positive thing for them. It may not have any bearing on any future tenure decisions but it sure as hell won't be a positive if it does.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 24, 2007 12:41 PM
Professor Avalos, if you read this, you might be interested to know that I just bought your book and I look forward to reading it. Ironically, I might never have heard of it if not for the DI's sniveling...
Posted by: Richard Clayton | May 24, 2007 1:42 PM
Professor Avalos, if you read this, you might be interested to know that I just bought your book and I look forward to reading it. Ironically, I might never have heard of it if not for the DI's sniveling...
Posted by: Richard Clayton | May 24, 2007 1:45 PM
Professor Avalos, if you read this, you might be interested to know that I just bought your book and I look forward to reading it. Ironically, I might never have heard of it if not for the DI's sniveling...
Posted by: Richard Clayton | May 24, 2007 1:50 PM
Denial of tenure isn't going to hurt Gonzalez much. Like any celebrity, all publicity is good publicity. His book gets more attention, well-meaning IDiots will now buy his book (he lost his job, he needs the money), he'll now be able to promote his book full time, without having to worry about his teaching or research schedule... DI will give him a fellowship that will probably make up for his base salary at ISU (what? $60k?) and he will get a contract from Regnery Press to write the Politically Incorrect Guide to Astronomy.
My guess would be that ISU was just a step up the credential ladder. Maybe he'll be able to bridge two causes and get a job from David Horowitz. Imagine that, an opportunity to feed at both the Scaife and the Ahmanson troughs.
Posted by: Ian | May 24, 2007 2:10 PM
Avalos' response is beautiful and puts his critics to shame.
Posted by: Anna Z | May 24, 2007 3:10 PM
(#2 above) appears to equate the denial of tenure to Dr. Gonzales with the promotion of Dr. Avalos to full professor (he was granted tenure quite some time ago, obviously). I haven't seen it pointed out here or on the previous thread that granting tenure at most Universities is quite different from promotion within the ranks once tenured. Dr. Myers quite rightly commented on the other thread that a vote to grant tenure has the voting faculty asking themselves, among other important questions, whether they really want to have that particular candidate working down the hall from them for the remainder of their career. In contrast, promotion to Associate of Full Prof. generally is considered upon application (usually not forced) and tends to represent that candidate has met a set of more-or-less defined criteria. The tougher hurdle is the first one- promotion to the permanent faculty (aka grant of tenure).
Posted by: Mike Kinsella | May 24, 2007 3:59 PM
I would be interested in seeing anything Avalos had to say about Dawkins' "The God Delusion". He seems about as neutral as one could get given his areas of study.
Posted by: Science Avenger | May 24, 2007 5:44 PM
I am a straight male.
After reading this, I am considering writing to Dr. Avalos and asking if I might bear his children.
Posted by: Sivi_Volk | May 24, 2007 11:21 PM
"Do you have to hand links to the specific spots where the DI folk have made the claims against you that you are responding to?"
I'd like to see those links as well. I don't recall those claims being made by the DI.
I also ran across a blog where you wrote that you were once a fundie/creationist preacher until you realized that the bible was a crock.
When a fundie preacher receives that enlightening revelation that the cosmos arose from absolutely nothing (quite an unscientific claim, IMHO), they pretty much find themselves out of a job. Shoot, that would suck.
Oh, wait...the next best place for them to go would be our public universities.
That would make for a good poll...how many university religion instructors hold atheist or agnostic faith beliefs? How does that number compare with those who hold to other religious beliefs. Has anyone run across a poll of this type?
Posted by: FTK | May 25, 2007 12:32 AM
William Dembski has just posted yet another distortion
(http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/and-hector-avalos-deserves-tenure-at-isu/) of my academic record.
He states the following concerning my claim about my article (Heavenly Conflicts: The Bible and Astronomy") passing the "editorial review" of Mercury: The Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific:
"That's why Avalos says it passed editorial muster but not peer-review muster. This way he can fudge on the article's status but have plausible deniability. This is also evident by his placing in the magazine's subtitle "The Journal of..." even though it is not there in the actual publication."
Amateur researcher that Dembski is, he probably only looked for the journal on-line. The actual hard-copy I have has "The Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific" right underneath the title "Mercury" on the cover of the issue (volume 27, no. 2) March/April 1998 in which I wrote my article.
So, contrary to Dembski's claims, "The Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific" is in the "actual publication." Look up the hard copy of this publication in a library, and you will see who is right.
Moreover, the claim that my article passed "editorial review" (not "peer review") is accurate, and Dembski is positively miffed that I did not claim more than what honesty demands. The DI could take a few lessons from atheists about honesty in their own claims.
Posted by: Hector Avalos | May 25, 2007 3:17 AM
That's just what he likes to tell himself so that he doesn't burst into sobs between working the Fart Foley on flash animations and trying to get into Ann Coulter's pants.
I know undergraduates in mathematics with a better record of mathematical research than he has.
Posted by: Dustin | May 25, 2007 3:42 AM
That would make for a good poll...how many university religion instructors hold atheist or agnostic faith beliefs? How does that number compare with those who hold to other religious beliefs. Has anyone run across a poll of this type?
and exactly why is that important in a university where we teach ABOUT religion, not OF religion.
or can't your tiny little brain, as usual, grasp the difference, there, FTK?
as to the links to the DI, you really don't know how to search the web, do you?
explains why you never seem to be able to find the articles that we refer you to on evolution, then turn around on your own blog and claim they don't exist.
you're a pathetic excuse for a blogger, babe.
When a fundie preacher receives that enlightening revelation that the cosmos arose from absolutely nothing (quite an unscientific claim, IMHO), they pretty much find themselves out of a job.
oh wait, that's what Gonzalez claims, right?
universe poofed into existence and all.
hey, he's out of a job...
why, you must be right!
LOL.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 25, 2007 3:45 AM
oh, btw, a little hint for you FTK:
a REAL university doesn't teach religion like Bob Jones U does, or liberty U, for that matter, as I'm sure Falwell would have liked to have clarified for you.
just to be clear, a University doesn't call church services "classes".
not surprising you know about as much about theology as you do about biology.
just thought it might be worth pointing out anyway.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 25, 2007 3:56 AM
and thanks, Dr. Avalos.
some very refreshing commentary that is all too uncommon.
good luck and congratulations.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 25, 2007 3:58 AM
I am dismayed to hear about an ID book called "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" because it could be mistaken with a french book called "La Société pure de Darwin à Hitler" (The Pure Society : From Darwin to Hitler) by respected historian of science André Pichot.
I read it half a dozen years ago and beside its garish title, it is a serious, interesting, and well documented history of the eugenistic concepts (Huxley, Carrel, Gobineau...)
http://www.amazon.fr/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9-pure-Darwin-%C3%A0-Hitler/dp/2080800310
Posted by: Abie | May 25, 2007 5:05 AM
This one strikes a chord with me and Avalos responds perfectly:
3. How can Avalos, an atheist, teach courses on the Bible and religion?
I get the same question, mostly from religious family members, when I tell them I'm going back to Uni to retrain as a Secondary teacher in Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies. I usually answer that as an atheist I'm probably a better choice than a religious person for teaching this subject. I can look on all religions without any hint of bias and teach about them all equally. The keyword here being "about" - I'm not going to be telling anyone to run along to church, the mosque, whatever.
Posted by: Paul A | May 25, 2007 7:03 AM
Balderdash, Professor Avalos.
In your response, you basically claim that the Hebrews invented genocide.
Further, you call for the ELIMINATION of religion in your book, Fighting Words.
Not separation, or even just education attacking it, but ELIMINATION...an odd choice of words in the context, Herr Professor!
Posted by: Greg S. | May 25, 2007 7:41 AM
Wow, Dembski's latest attack on Dr. Avalos went to the memory hole right quick.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | May 25, 2007 8:18 AM
Post #46 by Greg S. provides not a single quote from my book to support his contention that I "basically claim that the Hebrews invented genocide." Only the most superficial exegesis will draw that conclusion from my book.
Perhaps he missed my statement in Fighting Words, p. 165, where I note that ancient Israel's neighbors had similar ideologies of violence:
"The idea that a god fights for his people is known from neighboring cultures who were quite warlike... This rhetoric did not prevent Assyrians from effecting horrible carnage on their enemies."
Moreover, and unlike fundamentalists, I date the formation of the Hebrew Bible to the late first millennium BCE, and so the Assyrians and other Near Eastern cultures would have been practicing genocide for at least a millennium before biblical authors advocated genocide.
What biblical authors contributed was the main religious justification for many later genocidal policies in "western" civilizations (e.g., crusades, anti-Jewish violence throughout Christian history, European wars against Native Americans, etc.).
Being an anthropologist, by training, I also know that aggression can be found in non-human primates, and it was probably part of our earliest human history. I discuss that idea on pp. 63-64.
Posted by: Hector Avalos | May 25, 2007 9:11 AM
Well, hi there Icky. You wrote:
"...and exactly why is that important in a university where we teach ABOUT religion, not OF religion."
I'm quite aware of how college religion classes are taught (I took religion classes in college). Obviously, we don't want to push a specific religion, but rather teach about religious thought.
And, Paul writes:
"I usually answer that as an atheist I'm probably a better choice than a religious person for teaching this subject. I can look on all religions without any hint of bias and teach about them all equally. The keyword here being "about" - I'm not going to be telling anyone to run along to church, the mosque, whatever."
This seem logical, no? But, in reality, atheist and agnostics are every bit as biased as those who hold to a specific religious belief. They may be able to teach various religions "equally", but their bias could very well come across to the students as well. They believe all religions to be mythical/imaginary beliefs which various groups throughout history have adhered to for a variety of reasons. And, some atheists, as in Avalos case, believe that religion is a serious root for violence, and they proceed to write books on this subject. Certainly religion (including atheist & agnostic faith beliefs), like just about anything else, can cause hatred and violence in people who are predisposed to hatred and violence, but religion is also a blessing to much of society. I'm not sure the atheist bias in the classroom would be any more easy to hide than that of a person who is a Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc. They certainly would never suggest that anyone "run along to a church, the mosque, whatever", and perhaps that attitude comes across during class?
Icky wrote:
"...as to the links to the DI, you really don't know how to search the web, do you?"
Well, dang Icky, I've been searching but haven't run across those particular accusations from the DI yet. I think the good Professor might be projecting. But, I could certainly be wrong about this...I'll keep surfing.
Posted by: FTK | May 25, 2007 9:13 AM
Biased? On what grounds? Would you also say that the people who hold the Earth to be spherical are biased?
Posted by: Caledonian | May 25, 2007 9:47 AM
FTK wrote:
But, in reality, atheist and agnostics are every bit as biased as those who hold to a specific religious belief.
On the one hand, this is true: all humans have some bias or other; and, as a Central American history prof. said to me a long time ago, in many fields, such as history, culture, comparative religion and others, bias is both inevitable (because we all have our own opinions and feelings about what's important) and necessary (to help us prioritize and organize huge masses of facts into a coherent picture).
On the other hand, since we've now established that everyone is biased -- or at least potentially biased -- the question, in Avalos' case, now becomes: has his bias visibly compromised the quality of his teaching? And so far, I have yet to hear of specific instances indicating a "yes" answer.
I'm not sure the atheist bias in the classroom would be any more easy to hide than that of a person who is a Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc.
So, if Avalos' atheist bias is so hard to hide, then it should be easy for FTK to prove he's doing a poorer job because of it. Knock yourself out, girl...
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 25, 2007 10:12 AM
FTK,
Would you call non-belief in ghosts a belief? Of course not, there's no 'belief' involved in the simple statement, "I do not believe in ghosts," implied or otherwise. Lack of belief is not, in and of itself a belief, it cannot be.
You can accurately talk about an atheist's or agnostic's world-view in relation to the existence of a god, but you cannot talk about their beliefs in regard to such.
Just a nitpick.
J. Random, FCD
Posted by: J. Random, FCD | May 25, 2007 10:28 AM
Avalos is in full rebelion against the, what we might call "Dead Religion" that he grew up with. This is very understandable for someone who has had "Religion" forced down their throats as a child. Unfortunately he has not sought God at his points of need in his life so he is, what I may say is, unenlightened and does not know that a living God truly does exist who is very much alive and is their for us in our times of need. He was raised with a very strict religion when he grew up and now he has come to full maturity in worshiping a entity (blind chance) who could care less about him or anything in his life. It truly is tragic.
Posted by: PC2 | May 25, 2007 10:32 AM
"This is very understandable for someone who has had "Religion" forced down their throats as a child. Unfortunately he has not sought God at his points of need in his life so he is, what I may say is, unenlightened and does not know that a living God truly does exist who is very much alive and is their for us in our times of need. He was raised with a very strict religion when he grew up and now he has come to full maturity in worshiping a entity (blind chance) who could care less about him or anything in his life. It truly is tragic."
?? How do you know how he was raised? It's one thing to take a stab in the dark about how a person was raised and how that may affect their beliefs, but to write it as a fact is a bit presumptuous unless you have inside information of some sort.
Posted by: FTK | May 25, 2007 10:52 AM
"On the other hand, since we've now established that everyone is biased -- or at least potentially biased -- the question, in Avalos' case, now becomes: has his bias visibly compromised the quality of his teaching? And so far, I have yet to hear of specific instances indicating a "yes" answer."
There is no telling whether his bias comes across during class or not. I'd guess that it does not, but he has written several books and articles that many would say are a bit anti-religion.
I guess this would be a case similiar to the Gonzalez case. Can one teach without bias and keep their outside research, writing, and beliefs separate from what they relay to the students in class?
Seeing as Avalos' case is so simliar to the Gonzalez case, you'd think the man would support academic freedom and lay off Gonzalez.
Avalos doesn't want his university to be considered one that supports ID, but on the other hand, does that university want to be thought of a supporting atheism & religious intolerance due to some of the writings of Avalos? See my point?
Posted by: FTK | May 25, 2007 11:13 AM
Hehe. You really do know how to miss the point. But keep trying.
Academic freedom... hehe.
Posted by: Steve_C | May 25, 2007 11:30 AM
I love the...
"Atheists haven't sought out god enough, if they did they would know he was real."
I may hurt myself laughing so hard while my eyes roll.
Can they get stuck in that position?
Posted by: Steve_C | May 25, 2007 11:33 AM
I'm guessing I'm not seeing how Avalos is anything at all like the Gonzalez case.
Posted by: Pablo | May 25, 2007 11:39 AM
There is no telling whether his bias comes across during class or not. I'd guess that it does not...
So you "guess" that Avalos is a perfectly competent teacher, and his bias has not visibly affected his work, or his credibility among his students? I "guess" that means there's no problem with Avalos, and we can stop dragging him into a debate about some other professor in a completely different department.
I guess this would be a case similiar to the Gonzalez case.
Only if you can show Avalos giving vocal support to a pseudoscience whose rank dishonesty has been repeatedly demonstrated in Federal courts and other public venues. Or if you can show other academics criticising Avalos' teachings as unscholarly, as Gonzalez was criticized.
Avalos doesn't want his university to be considered one that supports ID, but on the other hand, does that university want to be thought of a supporting atheism & religious intolerance due to some of the writings of Avalos? See my point?
Not really -- you have just "guessed" that you saw no evidence that Avalos' bias affected his scholarship, or that he was trying to promote "intolerance" any more than any religion that wants opposing beliefs "eliminated."
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 25, 2007 11:45 AM
One more thing, FTK: why do you lump atheists and agnostics together as if they were the same? They're not. Are we seeing a bit of religious bias showing here?
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 25, 2007 11:52 AM
They aren't anything alike Pablo. You're not missing anything.
If ID is just like religion...they have aboslutely no point whatsoever.
And it is.
Posted by: Steve_C | May 25, 2007 11:53 AM
I found this about Avalos, so it might be of interest;
For what it is worth, from the ISU site "news" on 2-06-97.
"Avalos was a child preacher and faith healer while growing up in Northern Mexico. A Biblical scholar, he earned his master's degree from the Harvard Divinity School and doctoral degree from Harvard's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences."
So I'm sorry for presuming facts that may not be in order. He seems to have sincerily sought God. But found the level of proof he required to be wanting.
Posted by: PC2 | May 25, 2007 12:18 PM
I found this about Avalos, so it might be of interest;
For what it is worth, from the ISU site "news" on 2-06-97.
"Avalos was a child preacher and faith healer while growing up in Northern Mexico. A Biblical scholar, he earned his master's degree from the Harvard Divinity School and doctoral degree from Harvard's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences."
So I'm sorry for presuming facts that may not be in order. He seems to have sincerily sought God. But found the level of proof he required to be wanting.
Posted by: PC2 | May 25, 2007 12:20 PM
I found this about Avalos, so it might be of interest;
For what it is worth, from the ISU site "news" on 2-06-97.
"Avalos was a child preacher and faith healer while growing up in Northern Mexico. A Biblical scholar, he earned his master's degree from the Harvard Divinity School and doctoral degree from Harvard's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences."
So I'm sorry for presuming facts that may not be in order. He seems to have sincerily sought God. But found the level of proof he required to be wanting.
Posted by: PC2 | May 25, 2007 12:21 PM
Most rational people do find proof the required to be wanting.
Most rational people do find proof the required to be wanting.
Most rational people do find proof the required to be wanting.
Shocking I know.
Posted by: Steve_C | May 25, 2007 12:39 PM
Most rational people do find THE proof required to be wanting.
Damn. That's lame. I hit post way too quickly, much to often.
Posted by: Steve_C | May 25, 2007 12:48 PM
My copy of Fighting Words arrived in the mail today. I'm quite excited.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 25, 2007 12:52 PM
"One more thing, FTK: why do you lump atheists and agnostics together as if they were the same? They're not. Are we seeing a bit of religious bias showing here?"
Not at all. What I'm saying is that I've heard it said, and Paul alluded to it above, that agnostics and atheists may perhaps be better suited for teaching religion classes because they would show no preference to a particular religious belief. But, in fact, they themselves hold to a particular faith belief as well. Some are even quite anti-religious for various reason...violence they associate with religion, etc., etc.
So, in conclusion, it is quite hard to believe that there are many people out there who are completely unbiased when religious or philosophical beliefs are being considered.
Oh, and if anyone can post the links to those DI accusations, I'd appreciate it. I still can't seem to find them.
Posted by: FTK | May 25, 2007 12:53 PM
Damn it. Now I have to go stomp on a gnome.
"Not believing in a god takes faith"
I don't have time for all this myth bashing!
Posted by: Steve_C | May 25, 2007 1:05 PM
1. Avalos is not a scientist, and so cannot critique ID
2. Avalos's book, Fighting Words, blames the Jewish people for the Holocaust
3. How can Avalos, an atheist, teach courses on the Bible and religion?
4. Avalos is too anti-religious to teach in Iowa
5. Avalos spearheaded an atheist plot in Iowa
I have tried to read both sides of this issue with an open. I can not find any references to these statements being made officially by DI. Now, I admit these statements are easily defeated by Professor Avalos arguments above, but it does no good to defeat strawmen which are not really put forward by your opponents. So which is it. Are these strawmen or really the arguments of DI?
Posted by: John H. | May 25, 2007 1:21 PM
"Are these strawmen or really the arguments of DI?"
This is a very important question that needs to be answered, Professor Avalos. Please do so.
Posted by: FTK | May 25, 2007 1:32 PM
Why don't you look a little deeper on this site.
Try reading the post "A man after my own heart at Iowa State"
which is linked to up in the very first sentence of this topic.
How can they be strawmen if you haven't bothered to pay attention?
Posted by: Steve_C | May 25, 2007 1:32 PM
Hmmm...I must be quite thick. I don't see that John West made those particular accusations anywhere. Every fact that he did relay to his readers he backed up with evidence taken from Avalos' pen.
Could you point out the specific points that Avolos alluded to above? Maybe I'm just missing them, or you're reading more into West's words than what is actually there?
Posted by: FTK | May 25, 2007 1:43 PM
Heck, earlier in this very thread someone linked to the Evolution News&Views post that contained attacks #2,4,5 (see comment #23). Maybe you should, you know, actually look at the information provided before saying you can't find it?
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | May 25, 2007 1:45 PM