Posted on 12/13/2010 11:18:17 AM PST by SeekAndFind
An astronomer is suing the University of Kentucky, claiming he was denied a job running its observatory because of his Christian faith.
Martin Gaskell was once considered the leading candidate to be the founding director of the observatory, opened in 2008.
The Courier-Journal reports that a trial has been set for Feb. 8 after a federal judge ruled Gaskell has the right to a jury trial.
Gaskell argues that the school discriminated against him because he had given lectures in the past discussing astronomy and the Bible and his questions about the theory of evolution, even though he accepts it.
The university acknowledges there were questions about his beliefs, but there was valid scientific concern. It also claims there were other factors in denying him the job, including a poor performance review in a previous job.
Sue them and stew them. Lather, rinse and repeat.
More here :
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/12/13/theological-correctness/
Monday, December 13, 2010, 11:16 AM
Joseph Knippenberg
A federal judge in Kentucky has denied the University of Kentucky’s motion for summary judgment, paving the way for a jury trial on the merits of astronomer C. Martin Gaskell’s claim that the University engaged in religious discrimination when it did not offer him the postion of Founding Director of its observatory.
There appears to be no dispute about the quality of Gaskell’s scholarly work, nor about his record of already having done what the University of Kentucky needed done. But—gasp!—he has lectured on “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation” in a way that some biologists regard as creationist. Given these passages from his lecture notes, how they could do so with any intellectual integrity is beyond me:
“God made everything pretty much as it is now in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago” – the so-called “Creationist” position (a bad name! – I, and many writers on the subject prefer the name “Young-Earth Creationist” for this position). This is the position of the Creation Research Society (CRS), the San Diego based Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and a number of other “Creation Science” organizations. I have a lot of respect for people who hold this view because they are strongly committed to the Bible, but I don’t believe it is the interpretation the Bible requires of itself, and it certainly clashes head-on with science.
“The Answers are not in yet”. This is part of my own viewpoint. I believe that God has not yet revealed everything to us in the Bible (see Deuteronomy 29:29 and I Corinthians 13:9-10,12) and I know that we don’t know all the answers in science yet.
The main controversy has been between people at the two extremes (young earth creationists and humanistic evolutionists). “Creationists” attack the science of “evolutionists”. I believe that this sort of attack is very bad both scientifically and theologically. The “scientific” explanations offered by “creationists” are mostly very poor science and I believe this sort of thing actually hinders some (many?) scientists becoming Christians. It is true that there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory (a good thing or else many biologists and geologists would be out of a job) and that these problems are bigger than is usually made out in introductory geology/biology courses, but the real problem with humanistic evolution is in the unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations. It is the latter that “creationists” should really be attacking (many books do, in fact, attack these unwarranted assumptions and extrapolations).While discussing controversies and interpretations of Genesis I should mention something that has been much debated in recent years but is not an interpretation of Genesis: what is called “Intelligent Design”. This movement, which is often erroneously confused with young-earth creationism, is just exploring the question of what evidence there is in the universe for design by an intelligence. This is really a general, non-religious question (although with obvious religious implications), and there is no opinion on the interpretation of Genesis.
The University contends in part that because the position for which he was applying involved public outreach, there was legitimate concern that he would use his affiliation with the University to promote his private religious views. If this position stands, then woe be unto any of us who teach at public institutions, have private religious opinions that somehow find their way into our work (perhaps even for good reasons), and are identified by our institutional affiliation. Wouldn’t that be a kind of viewpoint discrimination?
The case goes to trial in February and bears watching.
Detailed report of the story can be found here :
There’s a story about a young man who applied for the job of teaching at a one-room school up in the Ozark hills. He was interviewed by the president of the school board, who asked him if he believed the earth was round or flat. He pondered a minute, then answered “I can teach it either way”.
Obama’s “War on Science”?
Is that even allowed?
My boss: Oh, by the way, I see you had a bad performance eval at your previous job. I'm gonna have to dock you some pay.
Me: But that was 10 years ago! I was barely old enough to drink let alone do well in a new job about which I was totally green.
My boss: Well, we still think your performance 10 years ago affects your current performance, so we're going to dock you pay for that error.
Me: But I was docked pay by that company at that time. You're going to penalize me again for something I learned from and never did again?
My boss: Doesn't matter. We just don't want you to slip up like that again, so we're docking you pay; and oh, by the way, you won't be getting that promotion this year either.
*face palm*
Welcome aboard
RE: Obama’s “War on Science”?
Well, let’s not blame everything on Obama the way the left wants to blame everything on Bush.
This has been going on even before Obama was President.
An outstanding Astronomer named Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure by Iowa State for similar reasons as the one in this article.
See that background story here :
http://www.discovery.org/a/2939
■Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
■Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
■Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
■Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
■Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
■Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
■Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
■Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
■Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
■David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
■Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
■Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
■Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
■Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
■Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)
■Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
■Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
■Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)
■Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
■Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)
■Duane T. Gish (biochemist)
■John Grebe (chemist)
■Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
■William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
■George F. Howe (botanist)
■James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
■Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
■John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
■Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
■Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
■Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
■Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
■Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
■Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
■James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
■Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
■Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
■Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
■Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
■Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
■Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
■William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
■John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
■Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
■Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
■James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
■Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
■George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
■Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
■William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
■Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)
■Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
■Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
■A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)
■A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)
■John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
~ http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html
After the discredited whiners of Expelled, I take all such accounts with a big grain of salt.
BTW, my college astronomy teacher was admittedly highly religious, and I never saw the religion get in the way of the science. His view was that science was a way to delve into the mechanics of God’s creation. But then he wasn’t a literal creationist either. He thought that God setting up all these intricate, interrelated laws of physics to make things happen as they did was even more incredible than simply creating something.
That is a classic statement!!!!
I can’t say for this case, but in general poor performance in a previous job for an academic is bad because it reflects on his overal academic history. Academics in the sciences is usually a cutthroat world, and unless you have a sugar daddy up high, any screwup will get you passed over for someone else.
But note that’s for the sciences. Once you get into the social, racial and PC stuff, it’s mainly about how well you can BS and how radical the junk is that you preach.
What does your reply mean?
I can accept that premise in a vacuum as long as you're extremely careful not to play god of the gaps. Unfortunately, the modern reality is that the founders of the modern ID movement, and it's prime movers and funders, are people who admittedly see ID as a way of Christian evangelism.
Another good reply...
“Do you believe the sun orbits the earth?
Have you ever said ‘The sun has risen’ or ‘the sun has set’ instead of ‘the earth has rotated enough during its orbit of the sun for the sun to now be visible...’”
:)
And, of course, he had a thorough grasp of everything involved in "simply creating something."
RE: Unfortunately, the modern reality is that the founders of the modern ID movement, and it’s prime movers and funders, are people who admittedly see ID as a way of Christian evangelism.
Can you name some of these Christian Evangelists?
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.