Both science and religion claim to bring light to life. The Tribune has written before about the perils of parallel metaphors. But here's another twist. It's disappointing that more light - as in open discourse - cannot be shed upon the denial of tenure for Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy and physics at Iowa State University.

Gonzales has been a lighting rod at ISU for his espousal of Intelligent Design as a potential theory for creation of the universe. The opponents, who include both scientific and religious studies faculty here, have railed against legitimizing Intelligent Design. Their argument is that Intelligent Design is properly part of theology, not science.

Last week, it was announced that his tenure was denied. He has appealed to President Greg Geoffroy, who has 20 days to respond.

The Tribune recognizes that confusing the issues weakens science and could establish a foothold for religion more broadly in education. Those who push school boards, for example, for more Bible-based education can use Intelligent Design as a way in, if it's viewed as an equal "theory." At ISU, tenure for Gonzales engenders fear that ISU could become known as a refuge for ID.

But here's the disappointing part about his denial of tenure.

Gonzales says he believes he's fully met the requirement for tenure. But he told The Tribune he would rather not comment on why he believes he was denied.

And Geoffroy, likewise, declined comment, citing the fact that the appeal is now before him.

Whether you are a proponent or an opponent of Intelligent Design, it is critical to the argument to understand the reasons behind the decision. Maybe Gonzales simply failed to meet some criteria, no different from other faculty who apply and fail to reach tenure. Or maybe tenure hangs in the argument about the legitimacy of Intelligent Design itself.

Either way, when Geoffroy makes his decision on appeal, the facts ought to come to light.