Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Astronomer claims he lost University of Kentucky job because of faith
Lexington Herald Leader ^ | 12/13/2010 | Peter Smith

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: astronomy; creation; evolution; kentucky; martingaskell; religion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-220 next last
To: meadsjn; metmom

Only those who “reason and judge” the way the majority do are fit for hiring? Is that not exactly the way those “climate change” frauds reasoned?


181 posted on 12/19/2010 3:35:19 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Is that not exactly the way those “climate change” frauds reasoned?

Fabricating data is not reasoning.

182 posted on 12/19/2010 4:00:42 AM PST by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: SeeSac
My statement was not to show piety. It was to show the arrogance of one that claims he knows the limits of God.

Who in the world claimed he knew the limits of God? It certainly wasn't I. I was talking about the limits of human knowledge, as was evident by the qualifications I placed on it.
183 posted on 12/19/2010 4:20:39 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

“The vast majority of Christians are not literalists or creationists. Those few who are certainly do not qualify to teach in a field of science requiring reason and judgement, and as I implied, neither would the “climate change” frauds who fabricated years of climate data to create the myth of global warming.”

So if those who ARE “literalists or creationists” would just believe as the majority do, then they would qualify?

Did not the “climate change” frauds say THEY were in the majority and that the consensus opinion was theirs?

“Those few who are certainly do not qualify to teach in a field of science requiring reason and judgement”

Is that not the reasoning of those data fabricators toward the climate change skeptics? And why those viewed as being in the minority opinion camp had their qualifications as scientists questioned just as you do in the above quote?

“..and as I implied, neither would the “climate change” frauds who fabricated years of climate data to create the myth of global warming.”

But they were teaching and being touted as the goto “experts” and holding positions of authority. They were the scientists who had “reason and judgement” and all who dared disagree were just those who were unwilling to accept the “facts”.

So how is your reasoning in your statement any different?


184 posted on 12/19/2010 4:38:47 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; YHAOS; Alamo-Girl
I am an atheist and an outspoken critic of creationism.

HELLO Right Wing Professor! It's great to see you again! (You have been missed.)

I hope you won't be a stranger around here. I'd love it, if you would share your views re: "creationism" from time to time.

Thank you so very much for the conclusion your drawn re: the travails of Martin Gaskell: "There is no place in science for this sort of intolerance."

I so agree!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

185 posted on 12/19/2010 8:22:41 AM PST by betty boop (Seek truth and beauty together; you will never find them apart. — F. M. Cornford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Right Wing Professor; Alamo-Girl
"HELLO Right Wing Professor! It's great to see you again! (You have been missed.)"

Roger that . . . on all counts.

186 posted on 12/19/2010 9:38:06 AM PST by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Who in the world claimed he knew the limits of God? It certainly wasn't I.

Perhaps you forgot:

"There is no such thing as a "law of nature" that controls nature or that exists as something according to which nature must "act."

187 posted on 12/19/2010 10:19:41 AM PST by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-343399.html


188 posted on 12/19/2010 10:25:46 AM PST by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: SeeSac
Who in the world claimed he knew the limits of God? It certainly wasn't I.

Perhaps you forgot:

"There is no such thing as a "law of nature" that controls nature or that exists as something according to which nature must "act."


You're doing it again. You didn't read far enough. You didn't think deeply enough or long enough. You saw some words and reacted to them and then inferred to me the thoughts that your reactions provoked. That isn't reading and understanding. That's knee-jerk, reflexive response. Try to get past it. No one has ever demonstrated the existence of a "law of nature" that dictates how something in nature must behave. For instance, there is no "law of malleability" that dictates that the substance of gold must be malleable to X degree and silver to Y degree. The differing degrees of malleability are part of the nature of gold and silver. The malleability is inherent in the element.

What people refer to as the "law of gravity" has nothing whatever to do with what people refer to as laws in terms of behavior prescribed or proscribed by society. No one has ever demonstrated such a concept, that masses are attracted to each other because some sort of pre-existing law external to them and instrumental to their behavior compels them to behave in conformity to a prior prescription of behavior existing in the so-called "law." The attraction of masses to each other is an inherent property of matter. The "law" is the summation of what people who examined closely enough the phenomenon to know what to expect given a certain set of circumstances have stated regarding the relationships between the conditions and the outcomes.
189 posted on 12/19/2010 12:04:03 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: metmom; antiRepublicrat; AndrewC; meadsjn; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene
Actually, what we are seeing here is how wrong you are. In this post 95 on this thread, we have a clearly defined and documented example of exactly what this thread is about.

Actually mom, this is an instance of good cop/bad cop, as played by Darwinian imams at the behest of their mullahs. Some too, do the ‘good’ cop in all sincerity, convinced of the rightness in bringing the two sides together (in politics we would call these latter folks ‘moderates’).

In its essentials, the Enlightenment has, frequently and unnecessarily, split knowledge in two contradictory spheres: facts (science) v values (ethics, religion, the humanities). The trouble arises when one side or another decides that its view must prevail in all matters public and private. In the last century or so, the trend has been to grant science the authority to decide what is true, objective, and rational, while consigning ethics and religion (particularly Judeo-Christian belief) to the realm of subjective opinion and nonrational experience. This dichotomy has come to be described by some as a ‘public,’ or ‘official’ view v opinions based on private judgments or ‘tribal prejudice.’

Of course the problem with this perspective is that there is no such thing as a disembodied ‘public’ or ‘official’ entity reigning over us justly and with beneficence. The public sector is populated with politicians and bureaucrats, all making official decisions based on political expediency or, when possible, on their own ‘tribal’ prejudices, and it appears that a particular set of tribal prejudices have come to dominate. The other problem is that, bit by bit, government has come to command our society to such an extent that it dictates how we shall conduct ourselves far more than it has any business doing. “Government by the people and for the people” no longer exists here, nor does it exist anywhere in the world.

Depending on how the Darwinian mullahs judge the public mood, they become more less aggressive in pressing their agenda.

When feeling secure in their role as members of the cultural priesthood, the mullahs trot out the bad cop to insist that Science has discredited any claim Judeo-Christian belief has to public fealty, and that Judeo-Christians should just simply go sit down over in the corner and shut up.

When, however, the mullahs sense some degree of restiveness in the public at this imposition of naturalistic materialism under the guise of science, they bring out the good cop. This is when we hear a lot of talk about the significant number of scientists who are religious (more or less) and how we should never mix science with religion and that the two really belong in two separate (but equal) realms.

Now, we’ve had considerable experience with this separate but equal business, and what we’ve learned is that separate is never equal (nor was it ever intended to be).

190 posted on 12/19/2010 12:57:56 PM PST by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: metmom; meadsjn
Actually, what we are seeing here is how wrong you are. In this post 95 on this thread, we have a clearly defined and documented example of exactly what this thread is about.

You take the remark out of context. Elsewhere I also said there are people who would discriminate against others just because of their religious beliefs. My point was that this isn't happening in the scientific world. The supposed examples of Expelled have all been shown to be whiners pulling the religion card.

Could you imagine the fallout if someone made that claim about a minority? Substitute *black* or *Hispanic* for *young earth* and *creationist* and see where it gets you.

That's not quite accurate. Would you hire someone if he sincerely believed the world was on the back of a turtle? Doesn't that tell you something about his ability for rational thought? It could logically contribute to a hiring decision because it could impact his ability to do the work. Would you hire a Marxist? That's another thing a person can choose to believe that could affect his work. These are things people choose to believe, not a skin color.

191 posted on 12/19/2010 2:48:13 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

That’s usually how it works. Candidates usually know their chances of getting tenure in advance. Most who know they won’t get it don’t bother. Some still try obviously, either because they have a chip on their shoulder, or because there is a small pool of qualified people fighting for the limited slots.


192 posted on 12/19/2010 4:15:13 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
You didn't think deeply enough or long enough. You saw some words and reacted to them and then inferred to me the thoughts that your reactions provoked. That isn't reading and understanding. That's knee-jerk, reflexive response.

In a properly structured paragraph, the first sentence is the topic sentence. It presents the foundation for the paragraph.

193 posted on 12/19/2010 5:35:21 PM PST by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
What people refer to as the "law of gravity" has nothing whatever to do with what people refer to as laws in terms of behavior prescribed or proscribed by society. No one has ever demonstrated such a concept, that masses are attracted to each other because some sort of pre-existing law external to them and instrumental to their behavior compels them to behave in conformity to a prior prescription of behavior existing in the so-called "law." The attraction of masses to each other is an inherent property of matter. The "law" is the summation of what people who examined closely enough the phenomenon to know what to expect given a certain set of circumstances have stated regarding the relationships between the conditions and the outcomes.

I take it from the above that your background is not in the physical sciences.

194 posted on 12/19/2010 5:36:44 PM PST by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
The attraction of masses to each other is an inherent property of matter.

I suggest that you pick up some books by Einstein.

195 posted on 12/19/2010 6:32:41 PM PST by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: SeeSac
The attraction of masses to each other is an inherent property of matter.

I suggest that you pick up some books by Einstein

I suggest you not get misled by imagery.
196 posted on 12/19/2010 6:40:09 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; SeekAndFind
Lying whiners. I have no tolerance for card pullers

Yeah, and all those on the record emails from NCSE to persons in the Smithsonian concerning Sternberg and the publication of the Meyer article don't exist. Yeah right.

197 posted on 12/19/2010 8:12:44 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
That’s usually how it works.

Then it's not a lie.

198 posted on 12/19/2010 8:29:20 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Then it's not a lie.

What's not a lie? The 91%? Like most things DI does, they're smart enough to usually stay away from flat-out lies. They prefer more insidious dishonesty and disinformation. 91% is correct -- for the whole university. But the department he tried to get tenure in, the only one that matters for this case, has a 66% tenure rate over 10 years. That's why you can't trust anything from DI, they have a history of twisting the truth.

199 posted on 12/20/2010 7:31:38 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Yeah, and all those on the record emails from NCSE to persons in the Smithsonian concerning Sternberg

I never said such people don't exist. But Sternberg was another perfect case of whining. "They took away my keys!" Yeah, all researchers lost their keys, to be replaced by key cards. "They made me move my office!" Yeah, a bunch of people moved, not just you, and you were given the office of your choice. Despite some nasty people saying nasty things, there is zero evidence any unwarranted negative action was taken against Sternberg. In fact, his status as an ID whiner even had one Smithsonian employee offering to sponsor him so as to not give him further reason to whine.

200 posted on 12/20/2010 7:36:23 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-220 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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