With nothing of any substance to actually talk about, like bench research, original ideas etc., the evolution denialists continue to harp on Guillermo Gonzalez, the ISU professor who failed to get tenure.
However, my question for Casey Luskin remains unanswered. They have accused science of a conspiracy (surprise surprise) because we don't accept ID as science (neither do the courts, anyone with a brain ... ). DaveScot, never one interested in consistency, has even suggested they leverage Dover against the tenure decision, because if ID is religion, they can't discriminate again Gonzalez for his religion!
I'm happy to see that DaveScot has finally accepted ID for what it actually is, religion, but I'd still like an answer to my original question.
Mr. Luskin, is it the considered opinion of the DI, UD etc., that it is never acceptable to discriminate against a professor in a tenure decision based on their ideas?
I'll also forward MarkCC's question while I'm at it. Would you agree with a proposal to make an evolutionary biologist who didn't believe in intelligent design a Discovery Institute fellow?
Just a few points of clarification while we await a response:
1. I read somewhere last week that tenure at ISU had about a 91% rate, hardly making it very discerning. Is that a right number or a number being spun?
2. If this guy's ID beliefs are so troublesome (and they don't seem to be much of a secret), why is he teaching there at all?