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.
He says "not a dominant factor". They shouldn't be a factor at all.
And there are many creationist scientists who have the admiration of colleagues. But you wouldn't know about that. It's not something talkdeceptions mentions.
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?
That's not the question at all. He already had the job, and was doing fine work. If I were a geologist and someone working for me was doing a good job I wouldn't give a crap if he was a flat-earther or even an old-earther.
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.
I didn't claim he was fired. I said they tried to get him fired, which is what you'd find out if you dug into the matter a little deeper.
And I guess you didn't read where it was claimed that he hadn't published anything in years. Selective your vision is, when an evolutionist is caught in a misstatement.
I know how you folks like to play up the evolutionist monopoly.
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.
It's clear from the context I was referring to the publishing monopoly. I'm surprised they haven't managed to shut him out of that yet. His work must be
mighty good, because those clowns are very strict about their ideology.
Who views his work as a threat? You can ask that? Evolutionists, that's who. For cryin' out loud!
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 see you're pretty down on the guy and you don't know the first thing about his work. But as he's a designated "enemy" of evolutionism please permit me to think I understand.
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?
You're not asking the only meaningful question: how well does he do his job? I don't doubt that a lot of people would do the same. They already have!
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?
It's obvious: they're out to get him because he doesn't share their religion. If he did, they wouldn't have a problem with him and neither would you.
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?
I wasn't aware that ID was "admitting" that. That's like saying Islam is Judiasm varnished over. Have you a link or quote handy?
Now, as an evolutionist, can you explain to me how a scientist working in astronomy and publishing in journals reviewed by evolutionists is threatening the fairy tale of evolution?
