Scientist alleges religious discrimination in Ky.

[Dos Equis]

Paranoid anti-religious extremists hard at work. 

Scientist alleges religious discrimination in Ky.
Published December 17, 2010
Associated Press

LOUISVILLE, Ky. –  An astronomer argues that his Christian faith and his peers' belief that he is an evolution skeptic kept him from getting a prestigious job as the director of a new student observatory at the University of Kentucky.

Martin Gaskell quickly rose to the top of a list of applicants being considered by the university's search committee. One member said he was "breathtakingly above the other applicants."

Others openly worried his Christian faith could conflict with his duties as a scientist, calling him "something close to a creationist" and "potentially evangelical."

Even though Gaskell says he is not a creationist, he claims he was passed over for the job at UK's MacAdam Student Observatory three years ago because of his religion and statements that were perceived to be critical of the theory of evolution.

Gaskell has sued the university, claiming lost income and emotional distress. Last month a judge rejected a motion from the university and allowed it to go to trial Feb. 8.

"There is no dispute that based on his application, Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position," U.S. District Judge Karl S. Forester wrote in the ruling.

Gaskell later learned that professors had discussed his purported religious views during the search process. Gaskell told the AP in an e-mail that he didn't grow frustrated, but felt "one should not allow universities to get away with religious discrimination."

University scientists wondered to each other in internal e-mails if Gaskell's faith would interfere with the job, which included public outreach, according to court records.

The topic became so heated behind the scenes that even university biologists, who believed Gaskell was a critic of evolution, weighed in by citing a controversial Bible-based museum in Kentucky that had just opened.

"We might as well have the Creation Museum set up an outreach office in biology," biology professor James Krupa wrote to a colleague in an October 2007 e-mail. The museum was making national headlines at the time for exhibits that assert the literal truth of the Bible's creation story.
Science professors cited a lecture Gaskell has given called "Modern Astronomy, the Bible and Creation," which he developed for "Christians and others interested in Bible and science questions...," according to an outline of the lecture. Gaskell told the AP he was invited to give the lecture at UK in 1997, and organizers had read his notes.

The wide-ranging lecture outlines historical scientific figures who discuss God and interpretations of the creation story in the biblical chapter Genesis. Also in the notes, Gaskell mentions evolution, saying the theory has "significant scientific problems" and includes "unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations," according to court records.

Gaskell was briefly asked about the lecture during his job interview in 2007 with the chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michael Cavagnero, according to Gaskell's deposition. Gaskell said he felt that questions related to religion during the job interview were "inappropriate."
"I think that if I had a document like this and I was advocating atheism ... I don't think it would be an issue," he said of his lecture.
Science professors also expressed concern that hiring Gaskell would damage the university's image.

An astrophysics professor, Moshe Elitzur, told Cavagnero that the hire would be a "huge public relations mistake," according to an e-mail from Cavagnero in court records.

"Moshe predicts that he would not be here one month before the (Lexington) Herald-Leader headline would read: 'UK hires creationist to direct new student observatory.'"

University spokesman Jay Blanton declined to comment Monday because the litigation is pending.

Gaskell said he is not a "creationist" and his views on evolution are in line with other biological scientists. In his lecture notes, Gaskell also distances himself from Christians who believe the earth is a few thousand years old, saying their assertions are based on "mostly very poor science."

Gaskell's lawsuit is indicative of an increasingly tense debate between religion and science on college campuses and elsewhere, said Steven K. Green, a law professor and director of the Center for Religion, Law & Democracy at Willamette University in Salem, Ore.

"I think it reflects a phenomenon that the sides in this debate are becoming more encamped, they're hunkering down," Green said. "Because certainly within the biology community and within the science community generally, they see the increasing attacks creationists are making as very threatening to their existence — and vice versa, to a certain extent."

Gaskell was uniquely qualified for the new position at the University of Kentucky, according to court records, because he oversaw the design and construction of an observatory at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He also advised UK during the building of the MacAdam facility. He currently teaches at the University of Texas.

His attorney, Frank Manion, said scientists at UK were too quick to place Gaskell on one side of the creation-evolution debate.

"Unfortunately too many people get hung up on the idea that you have to be one extreme or the other," said Manion, who works for American Center for Law & Justice, which focuses on religious freedom cases. They say "you can't be a religious believer and somebody who accepts evolution, which is clearly not true. And Gaskell's a perfect example of that."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/17/scientist-alleges-religious-discrimination-ky/

[loco]

Good read, Beach Bum!

The University of Kentucky is now in big trouble for religious discrimination.  And then the likes of Richard Dawkins still deny that this stuff happens today.   

[Dos Equis]

The Martin Gaskell Case: Not an Isolated Incident
February 3, 2011
By David Klinghoffer 

In his January Diary, John Derbyshire comes down on the side of the University of Kentucky for refusing to hire Martin Gaskell, a superbly qualified astronomer, for the sole reason that he expressed sympathy for intelligent design. The case of Professor Gaskell, who sued UK for religious discrimination, needs to be understood in the context of widespread anti-Christian discrimination in academic science. I thought readers might be interested in some background on the story and many others like it to which Brother John did not draw our attention.

The University of Kentucky chose to pay a $125,000 settlement to Gaskell, now at the University of Texas, after Gaskell’s attorneys released records of e-mail traffic among the faculty hiring committee. Seeking a scientist to head UK’s observatory, professors complained that Gaskell was “potentially Evangelical,” while a lone astrophysicist on the committee protested that Gaskell stood to be rejected “despite his qualifications that stand far above those of any other applicant.”

This is no isolated incident. An enormous, largely hidden transformation has taken place in what we mean when we speak of “science.” For centuries, the free and unfettered scientific enterprise was fueled by a desire to know the mind of God. “The success of the West,” writes historian Rodney Stark in his important book The Victory of Reason, “including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.” Now, increasingly, voicing such a desire is likely to get you excluded from the guild of professional scientists.

For years, I’ve tracked the stories that come out regularly about scientists of impeccable credentials whose religion-friendly beliefs proved injurious to their career. In some fields, notably biology and cosmology, Christians who voice doubts about Darwinian theory pay a particularly high price.

Last month, a top-level computer specialist on the NASA’s Cassini mission to Saturn, David Coppedge, got fired after he sued JPL for religious discrimination. Coppedge had occasionally chatted with interested colleagues about the scientific case for intelligent design, which made good sense since JPL’s officially defined mission includes the exploration of questions relating to the origin and development of life on Earth and elsewhere. For this, his supervisor severely chastised him for “pushing religion” and humiliated and demoted him.

At Iowa State University, astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez was refused tenure, despite a spectacular research publication record, because of a book he co-authored arguing that life is no cosmic accident.

At the Smithsonian Institution, supervisors harshly penalized evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg for editing a pro–intelligent design essay in a peer-reviewed technical-biology journal. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel examined the 2005 case, finding that Smithsonian colleagues investigated his religious beliefs and created a “hostile work environment” aimed at “forcing [him] out.”

Similar incidents have occurred at the University of Idaho, George Mason University, and Baylor University.

There is, in fact, an underground of Darwin-doubting scientists, fearful for their livelihoods, who believe that evidence from cell biology, cosmology, and paleontology tells an increasingly complicated and contradictory story about life’s evolution.

In every such instance I’m aware of, the suppressed scientist is a Christian, whether Protestant or Catholic. Meanwhile, among members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, 95 percent of biologists identify as atheists or agnostics. The fact of their religious (or irreligious) beliefs doesn’t invalidate their scientific opinions. Nor should the religious belief of Christians cast their otherwise sterling scientific training and acumen into doubt. However, in academia, it is understood to do just that.

It’s bad enough when private universities clamp down on the free exchange of ideas. But government-run institutions have often seemed to be the worst offenders of all, something the First Amendment cannot permit. The public is poorly served by a system of scientific research and funding that seems locked into reaching predetermined conclusions.

Science has become a business like many others, unfortunately, and a largely nationalized one at that. Workers must toe a company line. With the government’s $7 billion National Science Foundation and $31 billion National Institutes of Health heavily supporting research, localized pressures easily take on the form of a universal compulsion to conform.

The search for truth should be unimpeded by such orthodoxies, whether religious or anti-religious. The scientists who initiated the scientific revolution itself, all Christians, knew that better than scientists, or John Derbyshire, do today.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/258892/martin-gaskell-case-not-isolated-incident-david-klinghoffer

[Necrosis]

Here we go again, you cannot be a good biologist and be a creationist, it's belief is in direct contradiction to science, it's faith based. How the hell could someone with that judgement be considered the top candidate for a science based job. Nice article by the way, he is a blatant creationist, but the quotes you have are out of context and favored.



http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/martin_gaskell_was_not_expelle.php

askell is an astronomer who applied for a job at the University of Kentucky, and didn't get it. This is not news. The great majority of the people who apply for jobs in the sciences don't get them, even if they are well qualified — the rejected candidates know just to pick up and move on to the next application, because it is so routine.

Not Martin Gaskell, though. Gaskell is suing the university for not hiring him, which is amazing: when I was on the job market, I sent out at least one hundred applications, and ultimately got hired for one, so I guess that means I missed 99 potentially lucrative lawsuit opportunities. Dang. Is there a statute of limitations on civil suits?

Of course, Gaskell has a predisposition: he's a devout Christian, so that persecution complex is rooted deeply. He claims he was denied the job because he's an evangelical Christian. I say he's just inventing rationalizations…something else his religion has made him very good at. And the newspapers are helping him out.

No one denies that astronomer Martin Gaskell was the leading candidate for the founding director of a new observatory at the University of Kentucky in 2007 — until his writings on evolution came to light.

Wrong. I'll deny it. The leading candidate is the one you make an offer to — and the identity of that person varies throughout the review process. You can talk about a "leading candidate" when you look at just the cover letters and CVs; you'll probably have a different "leading candidate" when you've had a chance to read through all the letters of recommendation; it'll change again when you do the phone interviews; it'll change again when you've had the on-campus interviews; and it'll change again as the committee hashes over the discussions before making the final offer. This always happens. It's ridiculous to complain that it was somehow unfair that facts emerged during a fact-finding process.

I'm in the middle (nearer the end, I'm pretty sure) of a job search to hire a new faculty member here at UMM, so I know whereof I speak. It doesn't matter that Gaskell was well qualified for the job, since most of the applicants were probably well qualified; making a hiring commitment is a big deal that involves consideration of a great many factors, including subjective personal ones, so you simply can't complain about individuals not getting the job. It's fair to look for systematic bias, though, but Gaskell can't make a case there. He claims he wasn't hired because he's a Christian.

I don't believe it. There is no pattern of discrimination against the dominant religious group in the country, and Gaskell knows it. If you look at one of the documents he has written about his beliefs, scroll down to the very end, where you'll find that Gaskell has a long list of religious organizations, like the ASA, the Affiliation of Christian Biologists, the Christian Engineering Society, etc., etc., etc. It seems that being a Christian is not considered a de facto strike against the possibility of being a scientist or engineer.

The fact that some Christians are in the sciences doesn't argue against the fact that they could be under-represented, and face an unfair uphill struggle to get jobs. However, being a Christian is not like being a woman: it's not something that is necessarily obvious in a job interview. We don't ask candidates where they go to church, and if we find out, we don't care (not even me, the arch-atheist, will bat an eye if you let slip that you attend). Gaskell will have to show that the search committee was opposed in even a vague sense to hiring a Christian, and he can't do that. Why? Because there's a great big fat loomin' obvious Problem with a capital "P" splatted putridly in the pages of his CV, and all of the concern in hiring him was with that, not where he went to church.

Gaskell is an evolution-denier. He's an old-earth creationist, a theistic evolutionist who looks favorably on Intelligent Design creationism.

It's evident in his public defense of the Book of Genesis, in which he goes on and on with unlikely rationalizations for a metaphorical interpretation. This is a fellow who says, "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", and then goes on to endorse Josh McDowell, Phillip Johnson, Harun Yahya, Hugh Ross, and the day-age interpretation of Genesis, as if they are somehow not afflicted with these "problems".

There is a difference between accepting a theory that is incomplete, like evolution, and a set of wacky ideas that are contradicted by the available evidence, like these various flavors of creationism that Gaskell is favoring. That calls his ability to think scientifically into question, and that is legitimate grounds to abstain from hiring him.

The record shows that what people were discussing was not his religion alone, but the way his religion has affected his job as a scientist and communicator of science, and the effect of hiring someone with such dubious views in a state already trying to overcome the embarrassment of being home to the Creation "Museum". These are valid concerns. It's also a fact that when hiring, we want to have people whose skills we can respect as colleagues, and Gaskell was not in a good position that way. One of the faculty members who reviewed the case said it very well:

Another geology professor, Shelly Steiner, wrote that UK [University of Kentucky] should no more hire an astronomer skeptical of evolution than "a biologist who believed that the sun revolved around the Earth."

That's the bottom line. I wouldn't be at all surprised that Gaskell was exceptionally competent in the very narrow domain of his astronomical work, but faculty don't get hired to do only one thing, and Gaskell himself is quite clear that he isn't going to confine himself to talking only about his field…and unfortunately, it's also clear that he was a confused and ignorant boob about all the other subjects he was happy to lecture about.

[Necrosis]

Another

http://thedesignspectrum.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/martin-gaskell-wins-settlement-of-125000-from-u-of-kentucky/

he won a settlement, again his views should influence the hiring of him. It's perfectly logical, however it is considered religious discrimination but should be.

He would never get the job if it was biology, its like he believes in a geocentric universe which is akin to his dis-belief in evolution.

on a side note, thats not a very big settlement though.lol

[MCWAY]

Here we go again, you cannot be a good biologist and be a creationist, it's belief is in direct contradiction to science, it's faith based. How the hell could someone with that judgement be considered the top candidate for a science based job. Nice article by the way, he is a blatant creationist, but the quotes you have are out of context and favored.

Tell that to Louie Pasteur, you know the guy who came up with all them vaccines and made milk safe for people to drink. Didn't he also ripped to pieces one of the tenets of evolution (which many evolutionists no longer claim) called "spontaneous generation?

[tonymctones]

necrosis, you should look into charles darwin and his thoughts on creationism...

I think youd be suprised...

[Necrosis]

Tell that to Louie Pasteur, you know the guy who came up with all them vaccines and made milk safe for people to drink. Didn't he also ripped to pieces one of the tenets of evolution (which many evolutionists no longer claim) called "spontaneous generation?

again you see things in black or white, probably because you are religious.To believe in creationism now and to be a scientist casts doubt on your ability to think rationally and scientifically. However, it does not mean you cannot be competent in other areas. Creationism is not a testable hypothesis, ergo it is unscientific as the judge has already pointed out. Evolution is a fact as much as gravity. It has so much evidence in it's favor that it is literally overwhelming, not one study has ever contradicted it of the millions conducted. For example if a scientist questioned evolution but put forth a testable workable, falsifiable hypothesis against it, it would be tested, as such he would get the noble prize. Questioning a fact when the evidence is obvious reeks of preconceived thoughts. Im fine with darwin believing in creationsim, no testable theory with backing was around at the time. Im fine that louis pasteur ended spontaneous generation, another terrible theory that is untestable for all intensive purposes. People question theories all the time, but to deny a gross fact is appauling. Is evolution gradual or in a punctuated equilibrium? etc etc.. numerous questions are still unanswered in evolution and it is still falsifiable, creationism IS NOT, thus proposing it as science shows lack of rational thought wrt that subject.

quantum theory could be wrong, string theory could be wrong etc...but the fact that atoms exist cannot be questioned, this is what we are seeing with creationism. Science is progressive, religion is not.

[tonymctones]

necrosis, you should look into charles darwin and his thoughts on creationism...

I think youd be suprised...

bump for a response to the idea that biologist cant believe in creationism...

[MCWAY]

again you see things in black or white, probably because you are religious.To believe in creationism now and to be a scientist casts doubt on your ability to think rationally and scientifically. However, it does not mean you cannot be competent in other areas. Creationism is not a testable hypothesis, ergo it is unscientific as the judge has already pointed out. Evolution is a fact as much as gravity. It has so much evidence in it's favor that it is literally overwhelming, not one study has ever contradicted it of the millions conducted. For example if a scientist questioned evolution but put forth a testable workable, falsifiable hypothesis against it, it would be tested, as such he would get the noble prize. Questioning a fact when the evidence is obvious reeks of preconceived thoughts. Im fine with darwin believing in creationsim, no testable theory with backing was around at the time. Im fine that louis pasteur ended spontaneous generation, another terrible theory that is untestable for all intensive purposes. People question theories all the time, but to deny a gross fact is appauling. Is evolution gradual or in a punctuated equilibrium? etc etc.. numerous questions are still unanswered in evolution and it is still falsifiable, creationism IS NOT, thus proposing it as science shows lack of rational thought wrt that subject.

quantum theory could be wrong, string theory could be wrong etc...but the fact that atoms exist cannot be questioned, this is what we are seeing with creationism. Science is progressive, religion is not.

I see things in black and white, because most things in life are as such. You made the ridiculous claim that one cannot be a good biologist and be a creationist. Yet, when hit smack in the mouth with the fact that one of the greatest biologists in history was a creationist, you tend to make tirades like this.

Spontaneous generation was testable; that's the point. Louie tested it and it BOMBED big time. That was a HUGE tenet of the theory of evolution a "gross fact" (if you will) which has since been disowned like a leprous family member.

[Deicide]

bump for a response to the idea that biologist cant believe in creationism...

I doubt any modern day biologist could. Evolution is the hallmark of modern biology and essential for its understanding.

[Dos Equis]

Although "creationism" doesn't = intelligent design, here are a few biologists who believe in intelligent design:

# Michael Behe has developed the argument for design from biochemistry and has published over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals.

# Ralph Seelke is a microbiologist at University of Wisconsin, Superior, who has researched Dr. Behe's ideas in the laboratory, using mutant bacteria. Dr. Seelke explained how his lab work focuses on what evolution really can do in this intriguing podcast last year.

# Scott Minnich is a microbiologist at University of Idaho who credits the design paradigm to leading to new insights in his lab research.

# Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is a German geneticist who suggests that ID provides fruitful hints for giraffe research.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/scientists_who_support_intelli003594.html

[Necrosis]

I see things in black and white, because most things in life are as such. You made the ridiculous claim that one cannot be a good biologist and be a creationist. Yet, when hit smack in the mouth with the fact that one of the greatest biologists in history was a creationist, you tend to make tirades like this.

Spontaneous generation was testable; that's the point. Louie tested it and it BOMBED big time. That was a HUGE tenet of the theory of evolution a "gross fact" (if you will) which has since been disowned like a leprous family member.

LMAO Darwin was a creationist? lol he came up with the theory of evolution, hence he was not a creationist. Perhaps before his theory he was, but after, no sir you fail. You cannot be both, the people that beach bum posted are one or the other. They are mutually exclusive.

Show me how spontaneous generation is experimental? how do you induce it? do you just sit and wait. Evolution is a fact just like gravity the details of it can be debated, its quite complex actually.

[MCWAY]

LMAO Darwin was a creationist? lol he came up with the theory of evolution, hence he was not a creationist. Perhaps before his theory he was, but after, no sir you fail. You cannot be both, the people that beach bum posted are one or the other. They are mutually exclusive.

Show me how spontaneous generation is experimental? how do you induce it? do you just sit and wait. Evolution is a fact just like gravity the details of it can be debated, its quite complex actually.

You're so confused that you can't even get your facts straight. I NEVER claimed that Darwin was a creationist. Matter of fact, I didn't even mention Darwin whatsoever.

[Necrosis]

You're so confused that you can't even get your facts straight. I NEVER claimed that Darwin was a creationist. Matter of fact, I didn't even mention Darwin whatsoever.

dude you have no idea about evolution, why you are talking about it like you have ever read a published article is beyond me. You spew the same debunked non sense all creationists spew. They got raped in court, half of the people wouldn't take the stand because they knew they were lying. It's all in the name of god.

Im fine with anyone being a creationist before evolution was fully understood, genetics helped greatly. Name one amazing biologist today that is a creationist. It's funny how all these amazing people were before the theory was fully elucidated. It's just like all the great astronomers before galileo.

You cannot be a creationist and believe in evolution, they are mutually exclusive. As such, you are denying reality to believe in such if you deny evolution to have occured and to be occuring.

[tonymctones]

I doubt any modern day biologist could. Evolution is the hallmark of modern biology and essential for its understanding.

what up broham? havent seen you around these parts in a while...hows life?

I agree but evolution and creationism arent opposing philosophies...

[tonymctones]

LMAO Darwin was a creationist? lol he came up with the theory of evolution, hence he was not a creationist. Perhaps before his theory he was, but after, no sir you fail. You cannot be both, the people that beach bum posted are one or the other. They are mutually exclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_religious_views

perhaps if you educated yourself on the aspects of evolution and religion then you would understand that they do not HAVE to be opposing view points

and also if you educated yourself on darwin you would understand perhaps why...

"Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver,[10][11] and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist."

THREE YEARS BEFORE HE DIED
"Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence

[tonymctones]

necrosis evolution makes no assertion on how life began or what causes life...what evolution does is outline the processes of natural selection thats it.

[Necrosis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_religious_views

perhaps if you educated yourself on the aspects of evolution and religion then you would understand that they do not HAVE to be opposing view points

and also if you educated yourself on darwin you would understand perhaps why...

"Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver,[10][11] and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist."

THREE YEARS BEFORE HE DIED
"Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence

i cant respond now computer wont let me type properly, ill respond to this later, but evolution leaves god out of a job. Nothing follows after there kind and much more bullshit.

[Dos Equis]

i cant respond now computer wont let me type properly, ill respond to this later, but evolution leaves god out of a job. Nothing follows after there kind and much more bullshit.

Actually, macroevolution starts on chapter 2 of the book of life.  What happened in chapter 1?  How did life on earth begin? 

[Captain Equipoise]

Wow, what a whiny bitch

[loco]

Wow, what a whiny bitch

Yeah, because if you were denied a job based on your personal belief/disbelief in something or someone you wouldn't whine too!  

[Captain Equipoise]

Yeah, because if you were denied a job based on your personal belief/disbelief in something or someone you wouldn't whine too!  

No they were worried it was going to affect/influence his work, I wouldn't have hired the guy either, I know he denies it but there's gotta be reasons why they thought he  was a creationist, besides any nutjob that thinks the earth is 6,000 years old shouldn't have anything to do with science.

[tonymctones]

i cant respond now computer wont let me type properly, ill respond to this later, but evolution leaves god out of a job. Nothing follows after there kind and much more bullshit.

LOL charles darwin the person who discovered natural selection and its process that evolution uses disagrees with you necrosis...

but i look forward to your response when your computer is working properly

[tonymctones]

bump to see if necrosis's computer is working properly?