I have said twice that the US legal system has also ruled that ID is religion not science. This occurred in Dover, Delaware in 2005; and in Arkansas and Louisiana in the 1980s. (Your claim that an individual such as Gonzalez should know more about science than the judges who evaluated reams of evidence from myriad witnesses in three different cases is highly questionable.) Indeed, Bex has been posting examples of creationist "science" for months which have proved to be poorly researched and scientifically inaccurate, the most recent one being the claims about the horse fossils. Any serious scientific paper which was riddled with these kinds of mistakes would never be published. ID/creationism will have to do better than this if they want mainstream science to take them seriously.
U.S. courts are as corrupt as any in the world. In a discussion among grown-ups their opinions mean next to nothing. The impact of their corruption, that's another thing.
You are ignoring the fact that I told you that creationism figured into the work he was doing for the university. I told you that the very evidence he submitted for tenure contained it. I've also shown that creationist "science" is questionable at best, and that the US legal system has ruled that it is not science and has no place in a science classroom. If you cannot now accept that these grounds are good enough for denying tenure then I think we've got cognitive dissonance happening again. And I'm not going to continue to flog a dead hyracotherium with you.
Yadda yadda US legal system. Other than talkdeceptions, where could you find a less reliable source to cite?
Speaking of unreliable sources,
Professor John Hauptman had this to say:
"The assistant professor, Guillermo Gonzalez, works in the ISU Physics and Astronomy Department in the area of astrobiology. He is very creative, intelligent and knowledgeable, [color:"red"] highly productive scientifically and an excellent teacher [/color]. Students in my Newspaper Physics class like to interview him."
So far so good (or bad depending on one's perspective)
Later on, right in the same article, he says
"It is purely a question of what is science and what is not, and a physics department is not obligated to support notions that do not even begin to meet scientific standards."
He admits to voting against Gonzales on the grounds that he supposedly "doesn't know" what science is. Clearly this is evolutionese for "he accepts ID".
Now if what you say is true; and what he says is true, To wit: "nobody who accepts ID knows what science is"; then how could Gonzales possibly have been "highly productive scientifically and an excellent teacher"?!!!!! This is ain't kindergarten - this is a serious academic setting.
At least one vote clearly had nothing whatsoever to do with science, job performance, or anything other than the religion of evolutionism.
He's a Christian. As are many other scientists. There are Christians who are leaders in their scientific fields, and Christians who get fired because they cannot fulfill their job descriptions. The DI themselves are claiming religious discrimination because he is an IDer. The undeniable logic here is that ID is religion.
"Christains" can't discriminate against Christians? That's news to me! Looks like the kind of "Christian" that doesn't blend his faith (enough) with evolutionism can be discriminated against by the kind that does.
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?
His work, as I stated earlier and will not state again, is of concern to the department for which he works. If he is publishing papers that include creationist ideas that fly in the face of science, then no doubt they will fear for their reputation. It is an embarrassment factor and nothing more. I think we should refrain from further comment unless someone can get access to one of his papers which incorporates his creationist beliefs, in which case the competency of his science can be better evaluated.
None of Gonzales' 68 published papers was on ID according to a source I lost. History folder's a mess & I can't find that one.
According to
what it says here The funding excuse doesn't hold up either. So much for their "primary reason".
The "embarrassment factor" you mention is in my opinion a very thin excuse to discriminate. I'll bet you wouldn't even try it to justify racial or sexual discrimination. "I can't be seen working next to a woman!" - like that'd fly...
But I begin to understand your concern. In your science-by-majority paradigm, every vote counts, doesn't it?
Belay that post!Gonzalez co-authored a college-level astronomy textbook published by Cambridge University Press last year and has had articles on subjects unrelated to intelligent design appear in publications such as Science, Nature and Scientific American.
"None of my (68) published papers are about intelligent design," he said.
