Quote
I see no evidence that anyone here has read the Wikipedia article about Gonzalez. I assumed that once read, the situation would be self-explanatory. I will therefore present some excerpts and again ask that they be read by anyone claiming this person was maliciously discriminated against. Those who are claiming that he is a martyr for the creationist cause, please would you address the following points. Briefly, they are that the main reason for his failure to win tenure was his less than spectacular academic record and funding; and that the Discovery Institute has misrepresented the case through the ever-present art of quote-mining. The final comment questions the scientific nature of intelligent design/creationism. If it is not scientific then there is a legitimate question as to why a scientist is spending much of his time on it.

I read it. I also followed the links provided at the bottom of the wiki page. I found that evolutionists admit to campaigning against him, although they claim it wasn't the "primary" reason he was denied tenure (money is given as #1, and that's just hard to argue against). Still, "secondary" reasons are part of the process, are they not? According to what's written, they are.

There was an organized campaign against the book he co-authored, and against the video based off of the book. There was also a campaign against him at the university, although they quibble over whether it was against him personally or generally, and if it was against his tenure or just against him in a more vague sense. They clearly do view him as an enemy, and nobody at wiki or anywhere else indicates otherwise.

I maintain that any divisions in the evolutionist origins story are artificial, and they only assert them in self-serving arguments in order to make their job easier and belittle others. Or in order to avoid offending the subset of compromisers who are friendly to their cause. If you read the article carefully yourself, you should see at least some of this evidence.

In case my point went over your head (or you merely read too quickly), I'd like an explanation as to why this man's work in astronomy is viewed as a threat. You've said time and again abiogenesis isn't part of the teachings of evolution, and here we have powerful evidence indicating even astronomy is part of it. Am I mistaken?

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson