I'm reading the same thing you are. Dr. Harmon says that Gonzalez's ID beliefs were not a dominant factor. If you think that anyone can work as a scientist and advocate the sort of pseudoscience that creationists believe, and expect to win the admiration of their colleagues, you are mistaken. I've just shown Bex yet again that the sorts of claims they make on their websites are poorly researched and unscientific.

Again the question: If you were a geologist and a flat-earther wanted you to hire them, what would you do? If they then claimed you'd discriminated against them on the grounds of religion, would you feel threatened at all? Presumably people who believe the earth perches atop an infinite series of turtles, but who claim to be really good scientists anyway, should be in a huff too?

I can see that Gonzalez has published papers, which is what the Wikipedia article said. I can't see anything obviously wrong with the list. You are mistakenly claiming that he was fired when in fact he was denied tenure. To get tenure at most universities, you need to show an outstanding record of research, publications and grant-funding. The university agreed that Gonzalez did not meet these criteria. What matters is how his work stacks up against what the university wants and what other faculty candidates have done. I am unable to comment further on this, as presumably is everyone else here, not being involved in the case or knowing him personally.



Evolutionists have a monopoly on science? Now that's something I didn't know. I haven't seen any evidence that creationism is anything other than religion -- it is not science -- so there's no issue here.



Only in the sense that a university department employing a creationist scientist would justifiably feel that their reputation is being threatened. If you buy into the creationist movement, look at what you're buying into. Young-earthers who claim that scientists are liars. People like Hovind who consistently demonstrate that they know little about science. People who think that quote-mining is a legitimate practice. There's a lot of scientific evidence that you'd have to deny in order to espouse these views. Now I'm sure there would be no issue if you were delivering the mail, programming computers or cooking in a restaurant. But being narked when the scientific establishment makes it difficult for a creationist to work in a scientific field . . . this is a different kettle of fish.

I am Big Brother now because I am asking what Gonzalez believes about essential aspects of his field? A lot of other people would be asking these questions too. Like I said, creationism involves denial of scientific evidence. What evidence in astronomy is he denying I wonder, and does he have any basis for this other than a religious book?

Let me ask you a question. Technically Gonzalez espuses "Intelligent Design." There have been court cases where IDers have claimed that ID is science, not religion. So why is Gonzalez claiming religious descrimination?

Furthermore, if the IDers are now admitting that ID is creationism varnished over, why is Gonzalez in a huff if the university disapproves of him spending so much of his professional time on this practice and mixing it with his work?

Either way, this was a stunt, pure and simple. The Discovery Institute craves publicity, they desperately need it, and they know that the public has a short memory and won’t remember their litany of humiliating defeats. And could it be a coincidence that the Presidential primaries were coming up soon in Iowa? By starting up a press machine at the time, they may have been hoping to get some publicity on the Presidential front. Given how several of the Republican candidates admitted to being creationists, the DI may very well be right. Imagine that!