>>So basically, you’re saying that, after you saw he was affiliated with the Discovery Institute, you tuned everything else, all his accomplishments, anything he’s actually said or written, out.<<
That is correct.
>>I’m sorry, that’s an intellectually lazy approach that doesn’t befit you-— I know this sounds smarmy, but I seriously know you can do better than that.<<
Maybe... its not my field
>>Should I disregard Wesley Smith’s work on the ethics of cloning simply because he’s affilated with DI?<<
I wouldn’t dismiss his work, if his work interested me for some other reason. But I would not give him more status with the university when he is misusing his current status and when it would make the school look bad.
>>Besides, tenure does not generally work the way you have described.
Generally, when a man’s peers i.e. the department he is in, decide to grant him tenure, the president’s sign off is a usually a rubber stamp-— read amishdude’s posts.
The fact is, Gonzalez’s record of scholarship is undeniable. Is there anything either of you can think of to criticize that record?<<
The Privilege and Tenure Committee usually is the deciding factor. And no, I have no specific criticism of his work other being a fellow at the Discovery Institute - that’s like asking if I have a problem with a conservative activist other than his extensive work promoting NARAL. That’s enough that I would not want to promote that person.
Seems like a pretty dogmatic rule-— the Discovery Institute is not a place where everyone marches in ideological lockstep as is done in NARAL, so I don’t think the analogy works.
For instance, John Angus Campbell has no problem with Darwin’s TOE and thinks ID’s conclusions wrong-— but he’s in DI.
Smith isn’t an ID’er either-— but he’s in DI.
Well, anyway, thanks for being so cordial is disagreement!