Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When is it acceptable to discriminate against evolution sceptics?
The Guardian ^ | 02/16/2011 | James Hannam

Posted on 02/18/2011 8:40:28 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Dr Martin Gaskell is a respected expert on supermassive black holes and a long-serving research fellow at the University of Texas.

In 2007, Dr Martin Gaskell applied for the position of director at the new MacAdam student observatory at the University of Kentucky. He stood "breathtakingly above the other applicants in background and experience" according to the chairman of the selection panel, but he did not get the job. Unsurprisingly, he sued.

It is not controversial to state that English-born Gaskell is a devout Christian. He has also said that he is sceptical about certain aspects of evolutionary theory and that he respects creationists for being true to the Bible. However, his own views have more nuance and he probably belongs somewhere in the broad church usually labelled "theistic evolution". But the mere fact he was sympathetic towards creationists and kept an open mind about evolution appears to have disqualified him from being director of the observatory. As the chairman of the selection committee emailed afterwards, "no objective observer could possibly believe that we excluded Martin on any basis other than religion ... "

The case was about to go to trial. But, last month, the university caved in and settled out of court. Gaskell was given a payoff of $125,000, although the university refused to admit any wrong-doing. Nonetheless, this appears to be an unambiguous example of religious discrimination within the American academy. It is hard to imagine the university would have settled if they were sure of their ground.

The case has given rise to a certain amount of hand-wringing in anti-creationist circles.

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Religion; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: astronomy; creation; evolution; intelligentdesign; kentucky; martingaskell; sceptics; scientism

1 posted on 02/18/2011 8:40:33 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Ever since The State of Tennessee v. Scopes.
2 posted on 02/18/2011 8:42:45 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Martin Gaskell now teaches at the Astronomy Program of the University of Texas at Austin.

See here :

http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/people/people.html?u=134


3 posted on 02/18/2011 8:43:43 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sad, too. The real yahoos are the people totally sold out on evolution, despite the obvious fraud in so much of what purports to be “support” for it.

People who are hard-core evolutionists are nuts and whackjobs in much the same way as are the hard-core “global warming/climate change” fanatics.


4 posted on 02/18/2011 8:46:02 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will believe in abject nonsense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This documentary presents some challenging facts but falls short of proving trans-species development.

5 posted on 02/18/2011 8:46:36 AM PST by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Third Human....

If the third human on this planet did not come from the first two!... THeN..
A very ambitious Yarn MUST be created..

6 posted on 02/18/2011 8:52:05 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

How do you figure?


7 posted on 02/18/2011 9:04:46 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

no, no anti christian bias here...of course not......and he obviously isnt a real scientist, and he just doesnt ‘understand how science works’...

did i miss anything...


8 posted on 02/18/2011 9:06:45 AM PST by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Are you familiar with the concept of “begging the question”?


9 posted on 02/18/2011 9:07:00 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Evolution is a faith for fanatics. Convincing them of the obvious, that the theory of evolution contributes nothing to real science, is nearly impossible.


10 posted on 02/18/2011 9:08:03 AM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Because after Scopes, ridiculing creationists became fashionable.
11 posted on 02/18/2011 9:09:41 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stormer
[ Are you familiar with the concept of “begging the question”? ]

Are you familiar with the concept of changing the subject?..

12 posted on 02/18/2011 9:12:20 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’ll state it another way: Since creation science types are generally laughed at in scientific circles, would it be appropriate for a scientific organization to refuse to employ one of them in order to spare the organization the shame of having such a person on the staff?


13 posted on 02/18/2011 9:12:37 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Really? Are you aware of who prevailed in that case?


14 posted on 02/18/2011 9:14:02 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

In other words, you prefer not to answer the question. I understand.


15 posted on 02/18/2011 9:15:05 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
People who are hard-core evolutionists are nuts and whackjobs in much the same way as are the hard-core “global warming/climate change” fanatics.

You have the sides backwards, it's the Creationist and Global Warming Alarmist are the same.

To hide their true intent Creationist changed their name to Intelligent Design, while Global Warmist did the same and changed the name to Climate Change.

Creationist claim Atheist to their religion are denying their God because they want to live a life of sin (Sex!), while Global Warmist also claim Atheist to their religion are just deniers who want to live a life of sin (Capitalism).

Indulgences/Carbon Credits, Garden of Eden / Noble Savage, etc, etc

16 posted on 02/18/2011 9:17:23 AM PST by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Of course I am, but Scope’s conviction was overturned on a technicality, and he was never retried. And the floodgates opened to get creationism out of the schools after that.


17 posted on 02/18/2011 9:17:49 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Out of the schools where it never belonged in the first place.


18 posted on 02/18/2011 9:19:29 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It is the easiest thing in the world to simply say, “...and this animal evolved....”
Detailing each and every ‘RANDOM” mutation leading to that is a bit harder. Shall we say,...impossible? We shall!


19 posted on 02/18/2011 9:22:20 AM PST by Doc Savage ("I've shot people I like a lot more,...for a lot less!" Raylan Givins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stormer
...making it acceptable to discriminate against evolution skeptics. Not legal, mind you, but acceptable.
20 posted on 02/18/2011 9:22:46 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Acceptable to me.


21 posted on 02/18/2011 9:25:35 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: stormer

So then why did you ask me “how do you figure?”


22 posted on 02/18/2011 9:29:02 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: stormer
[ In other words, you prefer not to answer the question. I understand. ]

You didnt ask one.. you didnt even imply one..

If the third human on this planet didnt come from the so-called (lets call them)Adam and Eve.. where did "IT" come from?..
There must have been a third human at some time.. thats the way numbers work.. and procreation..

ELSE.. a very large even more simplistic Yarn must be built... to explain it all..

Science fiction requires logic or whats the point..
Reality need not be logical at all.. (nothing to prove)..

23 posted on 02/18/2011 9:43:48 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: qam1
You have the sides backwards, it's the Creationist and Global Warming Alarmist are the same.

Nope. The similarities between evolutionists and global warming fanatics exists because both positions are not merely unscientific, but are so in a fundamentally dishonest way. Let's face it - evolution, indeed the whole naturalistic, materialistic basis on which it rests, is unscientific idiocy. A sophomore chemistry student knows enough to demonstrate the complete folly of believing in the naturalistic abiogenesis theories of the evos. Wishful thinking and an inside-the-bubble social autism are what drives belief in evolution.

24 posted on 02/18/2011 10:30:51 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will believe in abject nonsense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Rich in adjectival labelings. Weak in evidence.

The core of science is observed evidence—evidence that anyone can see, from fossils to self-organizing crystals. {poof} does not meet this requirement.

For an example of how a stupid ‘scientist’ can mis-state and mislead, see:
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/schempp.html


25 posted on 02/18/2011 10:48:47 AM PST by saltus (God's Will be done)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: saltus
Rich in adjectival labelings. Weak in evidence.

You're right - evolution IS weak in evidence.

26 posted on 02/18/2011 10:53:37 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will believe in abject nonsense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Didn’t ask? Um... I’m afraid I did. It was the sentence in post #9 that ended with this “?”, a question mark.


27 posted on 02/18/2011 11:41:45 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Geez - How do you figure that the Tennessee vs Scopes case has made it acceptable to discriminate against evolution skeptics? In my opinion, it has always been acceptable.


28 posted on 02/18/2011 11:45:28 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Except it isn’t. There are several billion years worth of evidence that has been studied extensively for the last 150 years. The Theory of Evolution is as robust as a theory can be. Those who chose to ignore that fact and engage in mindless and willful ignorance while purporting to support the insidious half-baked nonsense that masquerades as science under the pseudonym intelligent design, are simply incapable of the type of critical thought needed to understand the nature of evidence and the scientific method.


29 posted on 02/18/2011 11:56:08 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: stormer

“The Theory of Evolution is as robust as a theory can be.”

So it is still a theory? I’m no scientist and didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I thought theories are unproven.


30 posted on 02/18/2011 1:58:45 PM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CSM

“...still a theory?” In science, there is nothing more profound than a theory - they are ALL unproven. Ever been sick and had a doctor give you a pill? Germ theory. Experienced an earthquake? Tectonic theory. Flown in an airplane? Gravitational theory. Theories are not best guesses - they are the culmination of information and practical knowledge that shape and articulate the way we interact with the natural world.


31 posted on 02/18/2011 7:26:48 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson