Quote
I read it. I also followed the links provided at the bottom of the wiki page. I found that evolutionists admit to campaigning against him, although they claim it wasn't the "primary" reason he was denied tenure (money is given as #1, and that's just hard to argue against). Still, "secondary" reasons are part of the process, are they not? According to what's written, they are.

There was an organized campaign against the book he co-authored, and against the video based off of the book. There was also a campaign against him at the university, although they quibble over whether it was against him personally or generally, and if it was against his tenure or just against him in a more vague sense. They clearly do view him as an enemy, and nobody at wiki or anywhere else indicates otherwise.

I question the inflammatory language you are using: "campaign against," "view him as an enemy." This language serves to paint the martyr picture. Some people expressed concerns about his creationist activities but they also cite evidence that his work wasn't up to scratch, only one of his graduate students completed a PhD, and he had attracted very little funding. You seem to be assuming that these are just a smokescreen for the real reasons they denied him tenure. Can you substantiate this assertion?

Quote
In case my point went over your head (or you merely read too quickly), I'd like an explanation as to why this man's work in astronomy is viewed as a threat. You've said time and again abiogenesis isn't part of the teachings of evolution, and here we have powerful evidence indicating even astronomy is part of it. Am I mistaken?

Who views his work as a threat? Are you familiar with any of his actual work? I'm not, and I'm not inclined to look it up because I have more interesting things to be doing. But this is beside the point. I've listed the reasons above why Gonzalez was told he was denied tenure, and they had nothing to do with him producing threatening work.

None of this has anything to do with abiogenesis either, as far as I can tell.

We simply don't know much about this person and it's easy to make assumptions. Does anyone have any facts about him or his published papers? He's not exactly a leader in his field.

If I were part of an astronomy department at a university, I would have concerns about a member of the department who was a creationist. This would raise fundamental questions about the nature of his work for the department. How does he think the stars got out there? What about the evidence that indicates that there was a big bang, and that starlight has been shining for billions of years? What does he think the cosmic background radiation is, and why is it there? If he were making claims that were contrary to where the current body of evidence seems to point then he would need to provide the research and evidence to back up his claims. The word of the Bible wouldn't, sorry to say, qualify in this situation.