ID is not science, it is religion. Gonzalez admitted he was using it to do his science. For me the issue ends there. It wasn't just about what he believes -- he was actually putting those beliefs to practice in his work. See my statements above about why a creationist scientist would generally not be accepted by the mainstream. The number one reason is that creationism requires denial of scientific evidence.
Fine, keep repeating all your little religious phrases if they comfort you.
But we know Gonzales to be a scientist, so if he says ID is science that carries more weight than you saying it isn't. Ain't that how the game is played?
What's silly is, even if what you say was true, you're claiming that he should be discriminated against on grounds of his religion. It doesn't matter if he practiced it at work. Should people be fired for praying at work? Refusing to eat pork? No.
And that last line's nothing but propaganda. I can't recall a single time when I've seen evidence rejected by creation scientists. Fairy tales, yes. Evidence, no. Doesn't happen. Not outside of the fantasies of evolutionmongers. Creationist scientists laid practically all the foundation of modern science, and you sling mud like that. About the only thing they didn't get into establishing was your pseudoscientific religion, and with good reason.
And there are many creationist scientists who have the admiration of colleagues. But you wouldn't know about that.
Then give me names that I can research.
Why would I expose good men and women to your vile slander? Do your own dirty work.
It's not something talkdeceptions mentions.
Who was it mentioning standards a few posts back?
Back this statement up please. Explain how I am deliberately out to deceive you. As opposed to, say, providing information that is distasteful to you because it clashes with your beliefs.[/quote]
Back it up? See for yourself - I don't hang out there.
TalkdeceptionsHe already had the job, and was doing fine work.
So you're his employer are you? We've already heard from the university and you refuse to accept thier side of the story. You seem to think you are qualified to comment about his work even though you are not an astronomer and haven't read a single paper of his; you claim to know enough about chemistry to say that abiogenesis is rubbish even though you also admit that chemistry ain't your bag; and by making blatant comments about evolutionists being deceivers you are essentially claiming that the vast majority of people in the scientific profession are liars. We'll let this speak for itself shall we.
I know he wouldn't be getting much published at all with people like you sitting in the censorship seat if his work wasn't prihty good. That's a stone-cold fact.
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.
The article said that there had been a dramatic decline in first authorship papers. There was a citation for this which linked off to
this page, which illustrates the point with a graph and an analysis of all of his published work since 1987. Do you have a problem with this?
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.
According to whom? The Discovery Institute? They're more or less ended the man's career. No one will want to publish his work in any mainstream journals and no one will want to employ him if he leaves his current position. Let's hope the DI are willing to give him a job. He can help Behe build a better mousetrap maybe.
According to whom? According to the people who were trying to get him fired. They said they wanted him out. And don't get your hopes up about blackballing him.[/quote]
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.
There are plenty of creationists who will read whatever he wants to write. Everyone else no doubt recognises that ID = pseudoscience. Can you explain how the publishers are "clowns"? You are full of vitriol tonight. Standards seem to be eroding faster than the Grand Canyon in the global flood. Don't quote-mine me on that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
Just this question, which is what I asked: If ID is not a religion, then why is Gonzalez claiming religious discrimination?[/quote]
I already answered that. They're discriminating against him because he doesn't share their religion. Plain as day.
And I'll just not be taking your say-so about ID "admitting to be religion" without evidence. I'm guessing there's a good chance this is merely empty hype you picked up somewhere unreliable.
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?
I've given you a link to look at which shows the decline in his work. He's admitted that ID influences his work and I've seen evidence that he submitted some of his ID-based work in his application for tenure. The US courts themselves have declared that ID is religion, not science, and yet he would seem to be claiming that it is science and hence should be part of his work. As I said before, this in itself is justification enough for denial of tenure, though no doubt the DI will trumpet on for a while about his perceived persecution.
Are courts scientists, or is Gonzales a scientist? Who's more qualified to say what is science?
Your statement about evolution being a "fairy tale" cements the evidence for your disdain for scientists the world over. I'm waiting to find out what evidence you actually have that is superior to theirs. Saying that abiogenesis is impossible, and that it's not fair that a creationist was denied tenure, would not yet appear to turn mainstream science on its head.
Wow, my disdain's pretty comprehensive, isn't it? I only intended to use the most accurate terminology possible, and looky what happened. I don't know my own strength, or something. But we already have your opinion of creationist scientists. And the educated know how much they've contributed over the centuries, "denying evidence" the whole time in your fantasies.
One thing I do know: you still haven't given any excuse for evolutionists caring about what an astronomer thinks. Unless the mantra's just meaningless. Either his astronomy is a threat to evolutionism or it isn't. Which is it? Is the mantra meaningless, or should evolutionists let this astronomer go about his life in peace?
