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.
December 13th, 2010 | 11:51 am
Well, many proponents of “intelligent design” do have a long history of misrepresenting credentials and implying institutional endorsements.
That doesn’t mean that one can just assume that a particular “intelligent design proponent” will ipso facto engage in misrepresentation, or that “intelligent design proponents” as a class are all “cdesign proponentsists”.
Tell ya what. If y’all get Gaskell, can we have Chris Comer?
December 13th, 2010 | 12:01 pm
A 6,000 year old Earth is perfectly appropriate for a Bible college. It is not, however, supported by scientific research as any search of professional scientific literature will show. As such the “viewpoint” is problematic for any professional science society or public university.
December 13th, 2010 | 12:17 pm
Gaskell says that young-earth creationism “clashes head-on with science” and that the young earth creationist attack on “humanistic evolution” is bad both scientifically and theologically.
In other words, he’s most emphatically NOT a young earth creationist.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the standard disclaimer should be able to cover anyone’s opinion’s when their institutional affiliation is mentioned.
December 13th, 2010 | 12:19 pm
@Les, I hope you noticed that Gaskell thinks Young-Earth Creationism is bad science.
@Ray, I suspect you are exaggerating using “many proponents” and “long history”. But perhaps you will enlighten us.
As to Gaskell’s position, I believe I fully understand. I too am a creationist in that I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I also believe science has little to say about that as God is not deterministic (unlike “many proponents” of atheism who have a “long history” of claiming that science proves no god is needed.)
December 13th, 2010 | 12:35 pm
@ Les Lane
I can’t see how the astronomer could be more even-handed than to say:
“…but I don’t believe it is the interpretation the Bible requires of itself, and it certainly clashes head-on with science.” This hardly sounds like an irrational man who will
It seems to be that the problem (as far as the University is concerned) with C. Martin Gaskell is that he publicly states he believes in God. Of course if he had stated he did not believe in God we can assume the University would have had no objection. Are they concerend that atheists might use their affiliation with the University to promote their private irreligious views? If not, why not? Of course they’d be a bit short of staff if neither atheists nor believers in God could work there!
December 13th, 2010 | 2:19 pm
I have not written a response as yet because I find it important to read the original documents in a case. The most significant if these are “MODERN ASTRONOMY, THE BIBLE, AND CREATION” by Martin Gaskell linked to above, the initial complaint, and the deposition of Prof. MICHAEL CAVAGNERO, which are available from the NCSE website also linked above.
I should hope others are actually interested to do this as well.
December 13th, 2010 | 2:55 pm
The description of events in either Genesis story has nothing to do with science. It was the Jewish rebuttal of pagan antiquity’s belief in multiple gods. Scientists and creationists always get off on the wrong foot by beginning with an appeal to Scripture. The Jews were right: The one and only God is the Creator; all else is creature. The accounts were not intended as an act-by-act description of “what really happened.”
December 13th, 2010 | 3:41 pm
I think that the observations of Father George V. Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory are relevant.
“Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution”
Abstract
I would essentially like to share with you two convictions in this presentation: (1) that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, while evoking a God of power and might, a designer God, actually belittles God, makes her/him too small and paltry; (2) that our scientific understanding of the universe, untainted by religious considerations, provides for those who believe in God a marvelous opportunity to reflect upon their beliefs. Please note carefully that I distinguish, and will continue to do so in this presentation, that science and religion are totally separate human pursuits. Science is completely neutral with respect to theistic or atheistic implications which may be drawn from scientific results.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504
In the website created and maintained by Dr. Gaskell, he prominently lists his professional academic affiliation. This does make it “fair game” in the review of his qualifications for employment at a public, secular institution. Particularly as it reflects his “outreach” and he applied for a job that had an approximately 1/3 requirement to preform science education outreach to K-12 teachers and students.
That site, Exhibit 18 in his suit against the University of Kansas, makes the following recommendation: “A discussion of the current controversies over evolutionary theory and how Christians view these controversies, is beyond the scope of this handout, but the now extensive literature discussing and reviewing books such as those of Phillip E. Johnson (“Darwin on Trial”) and of biochemist Michael J. Behe (“Darwin’s Black Box”) will give you some of the flavor of the diversity of opinion of Christian biologists (and geologists).”
Readers will no doubt recognize Johnson and Behe as two leading Intelligent Design creationists.
December 13th, 2010 | 4:02 pm
Dr. Gaskell is approving of ID, and he asserted in his website that it is not religious. He wrote, “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.”
But what do the actual founding thinkers of ID creationism have to say?
Mike Behe: “In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity. … Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the designer is a natural entity.” “Reply to My Critics”
Bill Dembski: “Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” (1999 Touchstone Magazine)
“My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ.” (‘Intelligent Design’, p 206)
Phillip Johnson: “This [the intelligent design movement] isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.” World Magazine, 30 November 1996
“The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ and ‘In the beginning God created.’ Establishing that point isn’t enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.” Foreword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science (2000)
“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” American Family Radio (10 January 2003)
December 13th, 2010 | 4:19 pm
The whole reason the Darwinian model of deep time and biological evolution became popular in the first place was that scientists demanded an origins story that did not need the supernatural.
That being the case, it makes perfect sense that they would blacklist this fellow, even if he is not a young-earth creationist.
December 13th, 2010 | 4:21 pm
From this article: http://ncse.com/news/2010/12/creationism-at-issue-employment-dispute-006363
“…there were other factors, including a poor review from a previous supervisor and UK faculty views that he was a poor listener.”
December 13th, 2010 | 4:31 pm
@Dr Hurd, You don’t seem to have made a point. Did you wish to make one?
The issue, as I understand it, is whether the university has broken the law in refusing the job based on religious grounds as opposed to scientific ones.
Johnson and Behe are well known to have religious views that stem from/lead to ID. Others have beliefs, religious and areligious, that lead them to/from particular research. “God does not play dice with the Universe,” comes to mind. So are you suggesting something in particular?
December 13th, 2010 | 4:53 pm
@ Joe Knippenberg who wrote, “Furthermore, it seems to me that the standard disclaimer should be able to cover anyone’s opinion’s when their institutional affiliation is mentioned.”
It is interesting that Dr. Gaskell never made “the standard disclaimer.” His only remarks concerning his academic affiliations were (and are);
“Not printed at university expense.”
Absolutely no distinction made from his personal views and the views of his employer. This was equally true of his University of Nebraska job (see trial documents), as it is of his current employer, “Astronomy Department, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712-0259” prominently listed on his current version of “MODERN ASTRONOMY, THE BIBLE, AND CREATION”
He does distance himself from the websites he links to, saying “[The obvious disclaimer: my inclusion of a web link here should not be construed as my endorsement of every opinion in every link or article on every web site!!]”
December 13th, 2010 | 5:04 pm
@ Anthony
The age of the Earth, and the invalidity of biblical “flood geology,” had no motivation from, or desire for “an origins story that did not need the supernatural.” This is simply not historically true. Making historically false, or incompetent statements does not encourage people who know better to be interested any what else you might have to say.
I recommend reading either,
Young, Davis A.
1995 “The Biblical Flood: A case study of the Church’s Response to extrabiblical evidence” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Paternoster Press
Young, Davis A., Ralf F. Stearley
2008 “The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press
December 13th, 2010 | 5:35 pm
@ Mike Melendez
I am sorry that you missed the (obvious) point that there is nothing in ID creationists’ writing that is not religious. For an historical view of the origin of ID, see;
Barbara Carroll Forrest, Paul R. Gross
2004 “Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design” Oxford University Press
Or Prof. Forrest’s testimony in the Dover “Panda’s” trial. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
When Dr. Gaskell indorsed ID, he is making an explicitly religious assertion that he claimed was “scientific.” He has also associated his employers, both at Nebraska, and Texas with these explicitly religious claims.
Regarding your unattributed quote from Albert Einstein, lest you imagine that he supported your religious beliefs, consider the following;
“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.” (Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954)
This was not a new opinion. He had earlier written, “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere…. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. – Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
If the issue at trial was whether religion was a critical heiring criteria at the University of Kansas, one might ask if there were any Christians working at the University? If there were, then that weakens the argument of Dr. Gaskell. The tipping point seems to have been the public talk Gaskell gave at UK in 1999, and his creationist website, “MODERN ASTRONOMY, THE BIBLE, AND CREATION.”
There is more than one way to read the website, but the “plain reading” is that it is creationist. Creationism is not at all limited to Christians, creationism would damage Gaskell’s ability to perform the job, and so the “religious discrimination” argument should fail.
December 13th, 2010 | 5:52 pm
@Dr Hurd, I happen to agree with you on Anthony’s comment, but chill brother. No need to pass judgment, just provide the data that backs your point. It speaks for itself.
As to the details you pointed out for Joe, I leave that level of judgment to the court. What matters to me, and I think this forum, is the sum of the whole. For example,did the University decide they didn’t like his religion and then go looking for other reasons or did the University find his conduct in general unprofessional. I’m not about to stand in for the judge as to which. Though I will pay attention to his decision. Some judges reach some very peculiar decisions when you look at their rationale. The Proposition 8 decision comes to mind.
December 13th, 2010 | 5:52 pm
Opps! It was a lecture in 1997 at UK that created the opposition to Gaskell’s employment by professors James Krupa, and Jeff Osborn.
It is also interesting that there were only two faculty incensed that Gaskell was not hired, and they seem to have been encouraging him to sue.
It reminded me of a job I was turned down for nearly 20 years ago. It was largely an political power fight between faculty in the department. In the strange world of university politics, it was really about the next department chairmanship election.
December 13th, 2010 | 6:12 pm
Dr. Hurd, Do I understand incorrectly? Dr Gaskell is an astronomer not a biologist. The position was for an astronomer not a biologist. I don’t see the relevance of Dr Gaskell’s opinions on biology to this particular suit. His opinions on religion though have much to do with it. Did they matter to the hiring committee?
I am well aware of Einstein’s religious beliefs. They were unique to him though he was raised Jewish. They are no less religious beliefs. And in this case, he was wrong in his conclusion (as opposed to the belief that led him there) as he later admitted. Quantum Theory works, strangely, but it works.
What is obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to me. Nor does that obviousness make either of us right. Put another way, I can’t read your mind. (And I suspect your doctorate is not in psychology.)
You seem to get lost in the details. May I suggest you pop up a meta-level or two.
December 13th, 2010 | 6:20 pm
“Creationism is not at all limited to Christians, creationism would damage Gaskell’s ability to perform the job, and so the “religious discrimination” argument should fail.”
But it is limited to theists and seems to have no effect on the science of many scientists who are theists. Then again, maybe we’ve gotten to the heart of your beliefs, which appear more political than scientific.
Creationism is a very broad brush. Dr Gaskell’s web page is clear on that. Maybe you missed that part?
December 13th, 2010 | 7:35 pm
@ Mike Melendez,
I must conclude that you have not read the trial documents. They are essential. If you have not read them, then you have no basis for further discussion.
December 13th, 2010 | 8:42 pm
Creationism right or wrong is a strange thing to set aside for hatred. There is a considerable shortage of Creationist terrorists.
Unless of course you mean by Creationist, simply “someone who believes the Earth was created”. In that case creationist means non-atheist.
December 13th, 2010 | 9:18 pm
Unarguably, young earth creationists should never teach science. Old earth creationist may be allowed depending on how involved they believe the creator was in creation. If Gaskell rejects any science in favor of a “God did it” explanation then he doesn’t deserve to teach any science at all. The only god that is acceptable is one that has no measurable effect on the universe and thus might as well not exist at all.
December 14th, 2010 | 12:17 am
Wait, someone who rejects “any science” in favor of a theological/ philosophical explanation doesn’t deserve to teach science?
What about plain bad science? What about opinions trumped up as “science” that propogate anyone’s own (anti/pro)theological position? Shouldn’t we be concerned by any type of complacency in science, any HIDDEN agenda in any camp?
I would assume intelligent people agree that science only makes significant advances when the current theories and even major assumptions are constantly tested and more evidence gained. Can’t scientists assert their own counter-theories and discuss the holes in current theories without being labelled as scientific pariahs?
If a scientific theory wants to maintain its validity, it should rely on the strength of its evidence and truth, rather than on shutting up its perceived opponents. That said, science as a general discipline must keep to its own jurisdiction to ensure its own objectivity. Its standards of measurement delimit its applicability entirely to the material. (Similarly, while one can use any number of scientific techniques to read a brain scan and interpret the data, scientists still can’t tell what a person’s thinking without being told expicitly.) We need to beware of giving science more than its due. It cannot answer all questions, only the ones it can manage a way to test.
So, while a theory and a discipline should keep their bounds, individuals can believe what they will and, indeed, should be encouraged to be open about their opinions, too. In an academic setting, I find it proposterous that opinions cannot be discussed as freely as data, theories, and more established foundations, especially on a topic that draws so much attention these days.
Finally, the only “acceptable” god is a real one, Tom, and I suppose the Judeo-Christian response to your concept of “no measurable effect” is the necessity of revelation.
December 14th, 2010 | 1:29 am
Gary Hurd, Ph.D. I must conclude that you have not read the trial documents. They are essential. If you have not read them, then you have no basis for further discussion.
Well, Gary Hurd, Ph.D., do you have a law degree? If not, I must conclude that you do not have the qualifications to discuss trial documents. They are essential. If you don’t have the qualifications to discuss them, then you have no basis for further discussion.
December 14th, 2010 | 4:36 am
Jason Taylor wrote
“Unless of course you mean by Creationist, simply “someone who believes the Earth was created”. In that case creationist means non-atheist.”
I believe the initial popular (as opposed to scientific) success of Darwin’s theories was that they fitted the prevailing religious beliefs of most highly educated people of the time, namely, the emergent pantheism of Hegel; beliefs that were mediated to those on a lower cultural level by Wordesworth, Carlyle and Emerson.
December 14th, 2010 | 9:30 am
@Dr Hurd, You parody yourself, as JB in CA has shown. My father died a quarter century ago, so I know you are not him. And I prefer the God I believe in to you. If you’re going to pontificate, at least follow the example of Benedict XVI. Engage and propose. Let the rest of us adults make up our own minds.
I do not agree with all of my coreligionists on all issues, nor they with me. And that’s just the Catholics. I have much to learn from all, theist and atheist, and I intend to learn as much as I can. I’d like to learn from you but you keep getting in the way. Spokoj, ‘mano.
December 14th, 2010 | 12:06 pm
The issues raised in the pretrial documents are summarized by Judge Karl Forester.
http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1484
It is less than 20 pages. You should all have at least read that, and Gaskell’s “MODERN ASTRONOMY, THE BIBLE, AND CREATION.”
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/gaskell/MABC.pdf
It is not apparent that you (generic), all have.
December 14th, 2010 | 12:06 pm
“I don’t see the relevance of Dr Gaskell’s opinions on biology to this particular suit.”
That’s exactly the key question. As a review of the legal documents shows, this position has a very large “public relations” component. If that component is significant, then a scientist’s understanding of another scientific field is relevant to the job description. Another important factor is a scientist’s ability to recognize pseudoscience from actual science. Intelligent design is pseudoscience, something that Gaskell doesn’t seem to appreciate. Dr. Hurd is a recognized and published expert in this particular field.
According to the legal documents Gaskell did not make religious arguments, he self-identified his biology discussions as “scientific,” not religious.
That is a legitimate basis to evaluate his overall scientific acumen. It may also not be helpful when he converts his claimed science to “religions belief” when he didn’t get the job. Interestingly, both sides filed motions for summary judgment. Inhis motion, Gaskell claimed that the evidence clearly establishes he had been denied the position based on his religious beliefs. The judge denied both motions. As a lawyer, I can say that such a result is not a surprise. The case is interesting and I do recommend you read the documents if interested. The documents are understandable to the intelligent layperson.
This is a case will apparently be resolved by a jury. The facts are not clear-cut. There are very lively disputes about his qualifications for example, so that part of the original post is contradicted by the actual documents (Dr. Hurd’s point).
December 14th, 2010 | 12:30 pm
I think the Univ. of Kentucky erred. Maybe they based their decision on an earlier version of Gaskell’s on-line essay, which indeed displayed Gaskell’s previous ignorance of the evidence for common ancestry and other aspects of evolution.
Eventually, Gaskell updated and improved the essay. As it stands now, the essay seems acceptable to me. Some parts are wonderful; some are less than wonderful but still no basis to deny him employment.
Gaskell does not mention some obvious problems with intelligent design (ID) theory, but correctly contrasts ID as a theory with creationism as a theory (I am fully aware that many people enthusiastic about ID are also enthusiastic about creationism and/or ignorant of science; Gaskell simply refers to ID theory itself, not to the motivations or religious doctrines of its proponents or their diverse levels of scientific sophistication). He vaguely refers to “problems” with evolutionary theory, leaving unclear whether “problems” means open questions (the lifeblood of any valid science) or flaws that he thinks undermine the theory itself. Martin Gaskell was, and perhaps remains, enthusiastic about Phillip E. Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial as well as Johnson’s later books. In his web essay, I like Gaskell’s critique of the philosophical materialism that (as Johnson emphasized) too often gets packaged along with evolutionary science. In my opinion, Johnson himself unfortunately failed to distinguish the philosophy from the science; Johnson’s approach was to attack the science, because of Johnson’s assumption that God’s fingerprints (accessible to science, he thought!) would be all over creation. Martin Gaskell has progressed beyond Johnson, I think.
December 14th, 2010 | 1:54 pm
@Joe McFaul, Dr Hurd is an international expert on pseudoscience? ID? A quick internet search shows a Dr Hurd who spends much time debunking ID. Am I correct to assume it is the same one? I note his degree is in Social Sciences though he apparently currently works in Archeology. I’m a little mislead by his short CV where he mentions, e.g. Psychiatry. Was that his department?
Is he of the opinion that people who are interested in ID should not be hired as scientists? Then I would strongly disagree with him. I could see the argument being made in a biology department seeking to hire a new biologist. But in Astronomy? In Mathematics? In Archeology? Whence came the test for across-the-board purity?
I could see the judge finding that Dr Gaskell’s professional conduct is deficient as has been suggested by a couple of entries. I could see the judge finding that Dr Gaskell proselytized in his college department should the evidence lead there. But that he is in interested in ID as a disqualification for a job in Astronomy . . .?
Then there is the entire issue of whether the hiring board considered his religion. That is illegal whether or not he is otherwise qualified. Only specifically religious organizations are exempt from that.
No, I leave the judgment to the judge, not Dr. Hurd. The good doctor will have to work harder to persuade me.
December 14th, 2010 | 2:16 pm
Phillip Johnson: “This [the intelligent design movement] isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.” World Magazine, 30 November 1996
Nice one Hurd, he is noting that ID is merely replying to the theological and philosophical arguments typical to Darwinists. After all, some of your main blogs are named after theological “Panda’s Thumb” arguments like this: “God wouldn’t make a thumb like this, therefore natural selection did.” Yet when someone comes along along and makes theological or philosophical arguments about what an optimal design might look like you say that that they must be censored, fired, etc.
This is probably because Darwinists are often more interested in separating and eliminating Jewish creation stories than science. It’s interesting that when the Nazis discriminated against Jewish physicists based on evolutionary creation myths and so on that their “science” turned into pseudo-science. Perhaps something similar will happen if you are successful in your campaign to have people discriminated against, censored, fired and so on for talking about such things.
December 14th, 2010 | 2:47 pm
The issues are these:
Is Gaskell a creationist?
Will his being a creationist impair is ability to fill the job of Observatory Director?
Was his creationist beliefs given undue weight in the hiring decision?
Is creationism a protected religious belief under either the First Amendment, or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e et seq, as amended?
Could a person be rejected for a faculty position in obstetrics if they believed in the “stork theory?”
December 14th, 2010 | 5:04 pm
@ JB, There are various reasons you are mistaken. But rather than go into them, I refer you to Joe McFaul, who in addition to being a licensed attorney, is also very well informed regarding creationism. He has followed all the major trials, and is extremely well read.
I will make just two points; the trial documents are the primary record. You and most of the others have not bothered to become informed of the issues, and yet are unrestrained in your opinions. Second, the case is going to trial, and the jurors will not be limited to lawyers. By your logic(?), they should be.
December 15th, 2010 | 9:01 am
Mr. Hurd:
I, for one, have spent a great deal of time reading the relevant documents and I can readily answer your questions @ 12/14 2:47:
1.) Gaskell is not a creationist. (Why you say so reveals that either haven’t read the documents yourself or that you, like the UK biologists in the case, struggle with the English language.)
2.) As he is not a creationist, the question lacks a correct premise and is therefore irrelevant.
3.) Ditto.
4.) If “creationism” simply means belief in a supernatural origin to the universe, as Sheldon Steiner in his deposition states, then yes, it is a protected belief under Title VII. (Steiner’s definition of creationism applies to most, if not all, persons who hold religious beliefs.)
5.) Because a person qualified and experienced in the field obstetrics is per se contrary to belief in your “stork theory,” the question is absurd.
If Gaskell is a creationist, as you falsely assert, then why did Eugenie Scott say in an email to the head of the search committee that Gaskell is accepting of evolution and could be a good person for the job?
Before saying else on the matter, Mr. Hurd, please acquaint yourself with the record in this case.
December 15th, 2010 | 9:47 am
@Dr Hurd: You finally give the game away.
All theists are creationists. Why do you want us all to be out of a job?
And did you notice that the stork theory was actually in the OB/GYN remit?
JB was yanking your chain. You’re the only one who wants to limit the discussion to people who agree with you. You’ll find no groupthink here.
December 15th, 2010 | 11:50 am
Attached to Gaskell’s deposition is a 2005 version of his website essay, “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation.” Reading it closely, and having read the authors, and most of the books he recommends, I am forced to recognize that he is a fairly ordinary “old Earth creationist” (particularly the positions taken by Hugh Ross in books and his website ministry). He is also a promoter if so-called “intelligent design creationism” shown by his promotion of several books by Phil Johnson, Mike Behe, and J. P. Morland, and websites such as ARN) And he advocates these positions in public lectures where he prominently displayed his academic affiliations, both at Univ. of Nebraska, and the University of Texas.
Since 1/3 of his job would have been conducting K-12 outreach, this advocacy would clearly generate problems. For example, see the transcripts of the Kitzmiller v Dover trial from 2005.
Not insurmountable problems.
However, in the search committee itself there was a very strong split between the Chair, Tom Troland and the rest of the committee. The vote on Gaskell was 1 for, 4 against, with Troland being the sole favorable vote. This split was reflected in the larger departmental group with Gary Ferland being a strong advocate for Gaskell, and the majority either neutral, or favoring the internal candidate.
Reading the depositions, you would have learned that it was Ferland who had hoped Gaskell would apply for the position, was most outraged he was rejected, and encouraged him to sue. In this sort of political “hothouse” any slight objection to a candidate is exploited as if it were some sort of world crisis. And we see this dynamic in the emails entered into testimony. Even Gaskell acknowledged this in his deposition. What is very unusual is that Ferland, and Troland would not accept the committee result, and encouraged Gaskell to sue. (Even with tenure, these two are in for trouble).
My personal opinion is that IF Gaskell was the candidate favored by the majority of the committee, his creationism would have been a “manageable” problem. He would have been instructed that any university public presentations would have had to 100% exclude his opinions on biology. Any other presentation would require that he distance himself from the university.
December 15th, 2010 | 12:04 pm
@ Joe McFaul, (if you are still looking in), you wrote, “It may also not be helpful when he converts his claimed science to “religions belief” when he didn’t get the job.”
This is an interesting point. There was a lot of dodging going on about what was “religion,” “religious practice” and “creationism.” This seemed particularly clear in the depositions of Gaskell, Troland, and Cavagnero. Of course, the American Center for Law & Justice will take the widest possible view.
December 15th, 2010 | 12:34 pm
@ Walter, December 13th, 2010 | 4:21 pm
The “poor listener” observations is painfully true just from reading Gaskell’s deposition. Even his own attorney got annoyed. I would enjoy seeing the video.
@ Chuck Austerberry, December 14th, 2010 | 12:30 pm
Dr. Austerberry, the 2005 version of Gaskell’s web essay, “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation” is attached as exhibit 4 in Gaskell’s deposition. The main difference is that the current version has fewer references to creationist books.
December 15th, 2010 | 1:37 pm
yes, I know it doesn’t help this conversation at all, but I can’t resist. in particle physics the folks that append “Ph.D.” to their name are usually self-publishing crackpots. folks like the estimable stephen blaha ph.d. the title is sometimes used as a false shortcut to legitimacy.
December 15th, 2010 | 2:13 pm
@ Kristan
Your point re: Ph.D. is just a bit off. When dealing with creationists I have found that they are commonly claiming fake degrees. Kent Hovind, Carl Baugh, etc. are particularly notorious in this regard. I have an earned degree from a real school, and so I see no need to concede that to creationists, or people little or no education.
If we were in an academic setting, there would be no reason to make the point of degrees. But, even then, there are very sharp and finely drawn status markers- which you may learn someday if you graduate. I find the most likely people to disparage the proper use of a degree title are those who lack them.
December 15th, 2010 | 2:18 pm
PS: If is didn’t cite my doctorate, people like Blake Stephens, or “mynym” would miss such a good opportunity to be rude.
December 15th, 2010 | 2:52 pm
hi gary,
hmm, maybe it’s a cultural difference. none of my colleagues find the need to wave their degree around in public in order to be taken seriously. usually the content of their thought is enough. I find the same.
it is particularly true when I talk about things outside my field of inquiry. I work in particle physics; it would be absurd and arrogant of me to claim those credentials as reason to believe my pontifications on, say, experimental psychology.
well, good luck to you.
December 15th, 2010 | 3:20 pm
@ Kristan
No problemas!
I spent many years as a professor of medicine, and we were very careful about degrees, certifications, and responsibilities. We wore color coded name tags, and even had different kinds of parking permits. Lives literally could depend on it.
So, the whole issue looks different to me. Dr. Austerberry, as another example, made no mention of his professorship.
December 15th, 2010 | 3:51 pm
PS: If is didn’t cite my doctorate, people like Blake Stephens, or “mynym” would miss such a good opportunity to be rude.
I wasn’t rude. Although I don’t have a problem with being rude to people obsessed with censoring and firing anyone who talks about Jewish creation stories within the context of science. Perhaps bigots such as this could think about things in terms of the language of science fiction in order to get around their religiously based prejudices. Perhaps people should say that it is possible that there are extraterrestrials who are also extracosmosial and it is possible that “the gods” or the God of gods may have something to do with origins. It is, after all, a creation myth to have Mother Natures given birth to Daughters and so on as some modern pagans suggest:
Stories rooted in nature based paganism are being advanced in the name of “science” while anyone who suggests that Jewish creation stories do not necessarily conflict with science down to the last jot and tittle are being censored, fired and so on. Ironically science arose as a result of Jewish theology. And perhaps one need only look to the discrimination of the Nazis against Jewish physicists to see that eliminating the “Jewish influence” will lead to pseudo-science. People obsessed with eliminating Jewish creation stories and monotheism from public life or scientific discussion are the disease of ignorance, pagan superstition and pseudo-science that they purport to cure.
December 15th, 2010 | 5:06 pm
One last observation re: degrees. The search committee, and faculty members that favored Gaskell were strongly promoting that he held a Ph. D., while the other cazdidate did not.
December 16th, 2010 | 1:00 pm
Now you’re helping me understand, Dr Hurd. Thanks! (Though I still may not agree with you.)
December 19th, 2010 | 3:24 pm
At the heart of this whole matter, we have scientists using philosophical dogma to rail against those who would dare speak of philosophy in the context of science. They aren’t even conscious of their contradictions, as they inadvertently destroy the underpinnings of knowledge itself in their attempt to free science from the God who made science possible in the first place.
Divine revelation and the miraculous are not the enemies of science, but the prerequisite. You will say I am a heretic for believing this; but until the 19th century, this was the understanding of science. Old-earth vs. young-earth, or common-descent vs. independent-descent were never the primary issue, and that is why this particular scientists is being attacked simply for daring to believe that God works behind the scenes to make biology possible.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact