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?
Fine, what's the politically correct term for "campaign against"? And I don't know of people who try to get friends or neutral parties fired - that's usually reserved for enemies. Unless you're talking about people who are just mean-spirited cowards who like to kick anyone in sight. But that type is everyone's enemy in a sense.
I guess you didn't read too much or too well. Your own link substantiates what I said.
Oh fine then! I'll take the time to make it clearer than it already is.
From the "Collegues speak out" part:
...Bruce Harmon, director of Iowa State's Center for Physical and Computational Mathematics, in a letter to a Wired Science blogger on the topic wrote "I sincerely believe that most of my colleagues could, and would, have overlooked the ID if there was great, really good, or even really promising science involved. The consensus you know. You ask if ID was a factor. I suspect it was to the extent that Dr. Gonzalez has said in at least one seminar that he believes ID is science and that he uses it to do his science. I don't believe it was the dominant factor among most of my colleagues. Dr. Gonzalez has said that he does not teach it in his classrooms because it is controversial. --snip
There are links at the bottom of the wiki page also, which are a tad numerous. Here's an interesting fragment from the very last link on the page, a pdf link:
REFEREED PUBLICATIONS IN PRINT (cont.) 64. G. Gonzalez, “The Sun’s Interior Metallicity Constrained by Neutrinos,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, L90 (2006). 65. G. Gonzalez, “Indium Abundance Trends Among Sun-like Stars,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 371, 781 (2006). 66. G. Gonzalez, “The Chemical Compositions of Stars with Planets: A Review,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 1494 (2006) (invited review paper). 67. A. D. Vanture, V. V. Smith, J. Lutz, G. Wallerstein, D. Lambert, G. Gonzalez, “Correlation Between Lithium and Technetium Absorption Lines in the Spectra of Galactic S Stars,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 119, 147 (2007). 68. G. Gonzalez, C. Laws, “Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets VIII. Chemical Abundances for 18 Elements in 31 Stars, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in press.
Seems one could dispute that part about him not publishing. The list is much longer than this, but I wanted to catch recent dates. With that accusation looking to be false, one can't just take the others at face value. If there were any real point, I'd investigate further.
And would these count as "creationist publications in refereed journals"? I'm just curious. I know how you folks like to play up the evolutionist monopoly.
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.
Who views his work as a threat? You can ask that? Evolutionists, that's who. For cryin' out loud! This is just funny. You rag about people not reading your link, and you come back and ask a question like that...
Has nothing to do with abiogenesis? May we extend that to "nothing to do with evolution" also? Still doesn't answer the question: why was there a conspiracy to remove him? Why do evolutionists dislike an astronomer enough to attack his livelihood?
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.
There's at least one link to a site on the book & video. The list of his papers is available. I don't know what qualifies one as a "leader" in your opinion. But I clearly see what disqualifies one.
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. [color:"red"]How does he think [/color]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? [color:"red"]What does he think[/color] 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.
I've added some color to your spiel advocating thought policing. Don't want folks to overlook your reasoning. A professor is expected to teach certain things, but I didn't know he was required to believe them as well. Please don't be offended when I say you haven't convinced me.
Humour: "Hector Avalos, outspoken atheist Professor of Religion." No joke. They fire an astronomer for failing to adhere to evolutionism, and they have this cat working. There's never a thought policeman around when you need one.
