And since cosmological ID is about as provable as biological ID, it still means it’s a load of old baloney, right Bob? ID is bunk whichever way you look at it.

“Gonzalez’s backers have insisted that he lost out on tenure, and will lose his job at the end of the school year, because of his religious beliefs and his advocacy for intelligent design.”

Not that I support Gonzalez or ID in the least, but the Disco Institute does not appear to be explicitly identified here as “Gonzalez’s backers,” as you seem to be indicating in your post. Perhaps I may have missed it elsewhere in the article. I certainly don’t doubt the connection myself, but it doesn’t look like we can use this particular Register article as rock-solid proof of that it exists in the Gonzalez case.

Keith said that free speech “might be relevant in tenure proceedings,” and I tend to agree. It’s not enough to say that “obviously” free speech isn’t what’s being targeted; we need the Institute to state in no uncertain terms that Gonzalez’s religious freedom is being trampled. Experience tells me that they are quite capable of putting this foot in their mouths with grand efficiency…

As for Kent Hovind and the flying spaghetti monster, I’d just like to point out that the ID assault on science is no game. Let’s put the toys away and get serious here.

I think it’s mostly the second thing here– that never admitting loss is an intentional strategy for mitigating the poor PR of having lost. The thing is though, if the media lets them get away with it, was it really all that dumb?

Maybe… whatsitsbucket… Patriot University or whatever it is.