What must it be like going through life as Denyse O'Leary, one of the dumbest human beings on the planet? Seriously:
Newsmag Christianity Today has an interesting item of Guillermo Gonzalez, the brilliant young astronomer who was denied tenure at Iowa State University, explicitly because he thinks that the science evidence supports design of the universe, as well as natural law and chance:
For the last time, Denyse -- for the absolutely last, goddamned time -- Guillermo Gonzalez was not a "brilliant young astronomer" who was denied tenure because of his fondness for the principles of Intelligent Design. Rather, he was denied tenure because he was a mediocre hack who was clearly incapable of attracting the kind of funding that is required of tenured professors!
What part of that do you just not grok, Denyse? Seriously, what part of that is simply whooshing by you? God Almighty, but she is a moron, isn't she?
THE LINK FARM COMETH: The most entertaining part of that bit of idiocy is Denyse's relentless love affair with herself in terms of linking constantly to her own work. It's like she has no idea that there's a whole world out there full of people with other opinions. And facts.
11 comments:
I have a serious but possibly slïghtly naïve question. Do we believe that Denyse is that stupid, or just very consistently willing to lie for Jëßüš?
I get the impression she's a liar. She misrepesented some issue about litigation a while back that was factually straightforward.
Maybe she's just a conspiracy nutcase. Meodiocrity does that to a lot of people.
I found this to be the most hilarious of all:
In my view, the evidence for design is hated primarily because it means that every decision that we ever made on the basis of the idea that human life is meaningless was wrong, double wrong, max wrong - and we are to blame for what we did to them because the mind is real and we really did choose somethng that was wrong.
First off, the evidence for design isn't hated it is non-existent.
Second, what the flying fuck does the rest of that run-on shitstorm of a sentence mean?
If this is an "edumacated" conservative then they need to start over.
Does it have to be one or the other?
Like a lot of her sort, I believe that she has one way of deciding "right" from "wrong". That is, who's perceived to be winning the argument. It doesn't matter how. Whoever can shout the loudest, lie the most, pull the dirtiest tricks, it doesn't matter if they can come out looking like they've won something. They and the "team" they've chosen.
But Denyse, I think she's got caught up in her own lies, and probably believes that she's somehow doing something right, when in fact it's just lyin' for Jesus. So she's a stupid liar who believes her own hype.
One other thing struck me as the most dishonest part of her post (this time): She never provided evidence of GG's "stellar" publication record (peer reviewed only you biotch!) nor anything else. Essentially the entire evidence FOR GG is the opinions of a bunch of religious assholes that are willing to lie for Jeebus.
It is true that there's a difference between stupid and dishonest. With Denyse, I'm going with stupid for a fairly simple reason.
When people are dishonest, they typically at least try to make their claims plausible. They realize they're pushing crap, so they work fairly hard at massaging that crap until it looks almost reasonable to the uninitiated and uninformed.
With Denyse, though, everything she writes is such patently horrendous bullshit that it's hard to believe someone could be such a terrible liar. As Brian Griffin would say, it's just easier to call her stupid and move on.
You know, in all candor, I have to go with Denyse on this one. Sure, he was sloppy about money and stuff. But if you're the astronomy department at Iowa State University, do you really want a tenured professor on your faculty who teaches intelligent design?
seer, it isn't about that, we all know we would fire the dipshit in an instant once it was shown that his main concern was totally anti-science hackery. The problem with her post? She's a damn liar through all of it, she loops back to tons of her own posts, never actually provides evidence of her claims and basically is just an insane harpy.
The University covered its collective ass by documenting other issues with his performance that included the low grant earnings, the low publication rate and a few other performance issues that totally justified the decision to not give him tenure that was totally outside of the ID issue.
Most likely he wouldn't have received the tenure even if the ID stuff never happened.
But it did, and you can't put the piss back in the bag.
Me? I would prefer that every single accredited program in every North American University issued a statement that let IDiots know that they are going to be hunted down and driven out of education for peddling the absolute bullshit lies that have led to a "debate" about nothing and wasted tons of dollars and research time.
"I have to go with Denyse on this one."
"denied tenure.... explicitly because"
nuff said?
KEvron
You simply cannot trust someone like Denise's claim with her claim about "explicitly". She is demonstrably wrong. He was actually denied tenure explicitly because
Dr. Gonzalez was evaluated for tenure and promotion to associate professor by the tenured faculty in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. That evaluation was based on an assessment of the excellence of his teaching, service, scholarly research publications and research funding in astronomy, using standards and expectations set by the department faculty. The consensus of the tenured department faculty, the department chair, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and the executive vice president and provost was that tenure should not be granted. Based on recommendations against granting tenure and promotion at every prior level of review, and his own review of the record, President Gregory Geoffroy notified Gonzalez in March that he would not be granted tenure and promotion to associate professor.
Further the Wikipedia entry has excerpt from the statement by the school's president who:
"specifically considered refereed publications, [Gonzalez's] level of success in attracting research funding and grants, the amount of telescope observing time he had been granted, the number of graduate students he had supervised, and most importantly, the overall evidence of future career promise in the field of astronomy"[10] and that Gonzalez "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy -- one of our strongest academic programs." Geoffroy noted, "Over the past 10 years, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the physics and astronomy department were not granted tenure."
"You simply cannot trust someone like Denise's claim with her claim about 'explicitly'."
you gotta wonder: malapropism or lie? let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say "both".
KEvron
Post a Comment