"Ball State already has a serious issue with creationism being taught as science by an astronomy professor, Hedin."

"Now they've hired another astronomy professor and creationist to teach science at their university, Gonzalez," says a Freedom From Religion Foundation lawyer.

Professor Gonzalez responds:

"As I communicated to members of the department during my interviews, I plan to continue my research on astrobiology and stellar astrophysics. I will not be discussing intelligent design (ID) in my classes (I didn't discuss ID at ISU either).... In my opinion, the controversy surrounding my hire is artificial -- largely generated by one activist blogger who is not an astronomer... Lastly, I need to reiterate that I was denied tenure at ISU not because of poor academics on my part, but for ideological and political reasons."

I'd say Gonzalez has the better side of this argument. Otherwise you'd be disqualifying even the most ordinary, mainstream religious believers from teaching science, creating fear of expressing the belief in God lest you become unemployable in your field.

(Notice that the FFR lawyer uses the term "creationism," and Gonzalez says "intelligent design.")

AND: Here's an old Slate article: "Creationism vs. Intelligent Design: Is there a difference?"