The cdesign proponentsists are up in arms about the fact that those involved in Guillermo Gonzalez’ tenure review discussed his support of intelligent design. Imagine that! What next? Will they discuss whether astronomers are astrologers who believe the stars hold sway over human events? Will they dare to start expecting that people who will teach physics actually accept the existence of atoms? Will they next refuse to give tenure to someone who, when having students disect a frog, emphasizes that the slain are an offering to Heqet?
How could anyone discussing the academic achievement or otherwise of a scientist not discuss the individual’s open involvement in a movement that seeks to undermine the foundations of modern science and drag us back to the dark ages when astrology and alchemy were the cutting edge of research?As has been pointed out before, if Gonzales’ supporters want to claim that he was discriminated against, then there is only one serious course of action open to them: admit that Intelligent Design is in fact a religious viewpoint and that this amounts to discrimination on religious grounds. But adhering to a viewpoint that has been exposed as at best a parody of science, and seeking tenure teaching science, should not end in different results than in the Gonzales case.