Scientist passed over for job because of his faith

[Della]

If anyone thinks that religious discrimination isn’t alive and well in our public universities, here’s proof: foxnews.com/us/2010/12/17/scientist-alleges-religious-discrimination-ky/?test=latestnews.

 

[Bluegoat]

Interesting. It’s going to be impossible to prove one way or another though, in all likelihood.

Now if people would just stop peddling this “creation science” bunk, this sort of thing would be much less likely.

 

[stephe1987]

He says he is not a creationist, so the people who do believe in young earth creationism are not relevant to this topic.

Unfortunately, this sort of thing has been happening a lot. People often don’t get jobs or are turned down from Master’s or Ph.D programs unless they are openly atheists. If they are Christians then forget it. It’s bullying and we’ve been down this road for so long it’s going to be very difficult to undo this anti-religious bigotry that is so prevalent in universities today. There is no religious freedom in universities today.

 

[Della]

Interesting. It’s going to be impossible to prove one way or another though, in all likelihood.

With all the emails and quotes by fellow scientists/academics I would think it would be easy to prove. Apparently the judge thought so, too.

Now if people would just stop peddling this “creation science” bunk, this sort of thing would be much less likely.

Not necessarily. They have a right to their opinions. Or aren’t we supposed to have freedom of thought and belief in our universities now? It seems not from this incident and others like it.

 

[Steel_Pinwheel]

There are number of examples of people being passed over for their Christian faith or for being a Creationist. But, usually they get rejected before they can get far along enough in the process to prove that their beliefs caused their rejection. Someone who is a known Creationist isn’t going to make it to the first interview. In this case, the man got as far as he did because he is not a Creationist and his past works probably conform to mainstream scientific views.

This one reason why Evolutionists’ appeals to authority is a logical error. Scientists, for the most part, are not free to follow the evidence to anything contrary to Evolution.

 

[kaid100]

I wouldn’t think it was right to discriminate against someone solely on the basis of religion. Most religious scientists keep their two spheres separate for obvious reasons, faith and reason don’t mix. According to the article, however, this Martin Gaskell would apply one to the other, and it’s the Science that lost out.

*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.
*

This is fine as a belief, but isn’t someone who rejects scientific ideas because they conflict with his religion unsuitable as a science teacher? A very few people think that the world is flat because of their misunderstanding of various bible passages. This is their religious belief, but would you want one of those teaching your children geography?

To put it the other way round, you might not object to someone that happens to be a doctor leading a lay bible study group; but would you be happy with them saying “Virgins can’t ever give birth, the gospels have serious problems with the idea that Mary could have done so” and then leading your children’s bible study group?

That said, if someone vetting scientist’s applications put all the applications from the religious in the bin and only shortlisted agnostics and atheists, that would definitely be wrong.

 

[Della]

I wouldn’t think it was right to discriminate against someone solely on the basis of religion. Most religious scientists keep their two spheres separate for obvious reasons, faith and reason don’t mix. According to the article, however, this Martin Gaskell would apply one to the other, and it’s the Science that lost out.

Faith and reason definitely do “mix”, see: Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason). Martin Gaskell is perfectly free to apply both to his studies and to his teaching as long as they don’t interfere with the rights of his students to question both. We are talking about academic freedom, not championing one scientific theory over another or the unquestioning teaching of one theory over another.

*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.
*

This is fine as a belief, but isn’t someone who rejects scientific ideas because they conflict with his religion unsuitable as a science teacher? A very few people think that the world is flat because of their misunderstanding of various bible passages. This is their religious belief, but would you want one of those teaching your children geography?

Nowhere does he say that his beliefs tell him that evolution has problems, but rather that the scientific evidence says that, so your example doesn’t fit. Other scientists who claim no faith also say the same thing. Have they also abandoned science for personal beliefs? Hardly.

To put it the other way round, you might not object to someone that happens to be a doctor leading a lay bible study group; but would you be happy with them saying “Virgins can’t ever give birth, the gospels have serious problems with the idea that Mary could have done so” and then leading your children’s bible study group?

That said, if someone vetting scientist’s applications put all the applications from the religious in the bin and only shortlisted agnostics and atheists, that would definitely be wrong.

Your example is a strawman. He isn’t doing anything of the kind. He’s was passed over for merely expressing that he has faith in God, not for trying to force those beliefs on anyone.

 

[kaid100]

Faith and reason definitely do “mix”, see: Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason). Martin Gaskell is perfectly free to apply both to his studies and to his teaching as long as they don’t interfere with the rights of his students to question both. We are talking about academic freedom, not championing one scientific theory over another or the unquestioning teaching of one theory over another.

The article you link is by the last Pope, John Paul II. Can you see how citing this wouldn’t convince someone who isn’t Catholic? Although here is an interesting quote from the article: A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today’s most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth.

Nowhere does he say that his beliefs tell him that evolution has problems, but rather that the scientific evidence says that, so your example doesn’t fit. Other scientists who claim no faith also say the same thing. Have they also abandoned science for personal beliefs? Hardly.

I’d be interested to read what these other scientists say, could you provide a link or two? Certainly evolution has been widely accepted by all biologists that are not strongly religious (and a few that are) for over a century; but if you have links to the contrary I’d be interested to see them.

Your example is a strawman. He isn’t doing anything of the kind. He’s was passed over for merely expressing that he has faith in God, not for trying to force those beliefs on anyone.

You can dismiss my example if you like, but I think it’s valid. However, he was not passed over merely for expressing his belief in God. If anything, it was for expressing a disbelief in the widely accepted theory of evolution, and for saying that it had atheist assumptions and extrapolations.

 

[TracyR]

Interesting. It’s going to be impossible to prove one way or another though, in all likelihood.

Now if people would just stop peddling this “creation science” bunk, this sort of thing would be much less likely.

Who says that Creation Science is bunk? Can you prove its bunk? NO.
I certainly do not believe that the world is millions of years old. I do not believe in evolution. It says right in the Bible that God created man in his own image, Not God created man to change over the course of time.

Since the Bible doesn’t state that you have to believe a particular type of science to enter the kingdom of Heaven. I think it is only kind to respect everyone’s theories and not call it creation science bunk.
“In fact, if someone believes the world is flat, they can still be a faithful Catholic. In the early days many Catholics believed the world was flat, and they still went to heaven. God is in search of a faithful heart, not a degree in science. Jesus said “become as children.” (Mat 18:3) Most children don’t know how old the earth is and don’t care. We simply need to believe in Jesus, surrender to him, and be baptised. Thank God.”(MacDonald,2009)

 

[edward_george]

The article you link is by the last Pope, John Paul II. Can you see how citing this wouldn’t convince someone who isn’t Catholic? Although here is an interesting quote from the article: A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today’s most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth.

I’d be interested to read what these other scientists say, could you provide a link or two? Certainly evolution has been widely accepted by all biologists that are not strongly religious (and a few that are) for over a century; but if you have links to the contrary I’d be interested to see them.

You can dismiss my example if you like, but I think it’s valid. However, he was not passed over merely for expressing his belief in God. If anything, it was for expressing a disbelief in the widely accepted theory of evolution, and for saying that it had atheist assumptions and extrapolations.

If you actually read the document, you will see that it is well reasoned and should be able to at least catch the attention of people who aren’t Catholic. The assumption that the Pope has nothing to say to non-Catholics is part of the larger problem here. The non-believers in power in culture seem to think that the leaders of the Church should keep their opinions to themselves. I think that non-believers would have much to gain from listening to the leaders of the Church, especially the Popes (given some of the things they have experienced to get where they’re at), and I think as well that believers have much to gain from listening to non-believers (and not just in a “what not to do” sense). See this quote from Fides et Ratio:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

And along similar lines, from Albert Einstein himself:

“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

See this article for more:
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0273.htm

-ACEGC

 

[Bluegoat]

With all the emails and quotes by fellow scientists/academics I would think it would be easy to prove. Apparently the judge thought so, too.

Yes, they were clearly thinking about it. I just don’t know, from what I saw in this and a few other articles, is how much that really factored into the final decision. I’ve observed a few academic appointments second-hand, and just like in a private business, there are a lot of intangibles that end up going in to succh decisions. Things like how well will this person work with the group, will he be in line with the direction the department is looking to go, is he easy to get along with, do hos particular strengths round out the deficiencies of the others. I’m sure often the people making the decision don’t know exactly what makes them prefer one candidate over another.

So while a judge might make a decision one way or the other, we really can’t know for sure. The most interesting thing for us is to see how the scientific community seemed to perceive his Christian faith. There are other Christians in science - in physics in particular - so I find myself wondering why it raised flags in particular in this instance? Something about the candidate, or that department? Or is it that the political discussion has become so combative that even the possibility of bad press has become an issue?

Not necessarily. They have a right to their opinions. Or aren’t we supposed to have freedom of thought and belief in our universities now? It seems not from this incident and others like it.

Of course they have the right to their opinions - though most “creation science” has no scientific credibility, and that has nothing to do with academic freedom being quashed. The scientists at the Vatican observatory would be just as unlikely to want to hire someone who supports many of the arguments widely circulated under that title. THey would be better off if they simply said that science was unreliable on this subject because the creation was a miracle.

But the real problem IMO is the claim that one cannot be a real Christian and support evolution as a scientific theory. That is the claim of fundamentalists and those who are trying to have teaching evolution banned in schools. Because they hear it so often and so loudly the public and it seems parts of the scientific community have begin to accept that those are in fact the terms of the discourse. I actually spoke to a student in a university, a science student - who was unaware that it was really possible for a Christian to be anything other than a YEC supporter. THis young man was a Christian, so one would think he has been at least exposed to other views.

When people are under that impression, it is not surprising they would be suspicious of a scientist who was a Christian.

 

[kaid100]

If you actually read the document, you will see that it is well reasoned and should be able to at least catch the attention of people who aren’t Catholic. The assumption that the Pope has nothing to say to non-Catholics is part of the larger problem here. The non-believers in power in culture seem to think that the leaders of the Church should keep their opinions to themselves. I think that non-believers would have much to gain from listening to the leaders of the Church, especially the Popes (given some of the things they have experienced to get where they’re at), and I think as well that believers have much to gain from listening to non-believers (and not just in a “what not to do” sense). See this quote from Fides et Ratio:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

And along similar lines, from Albert Einstein himself:

“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

See this article for more:
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0273.htm

-ACEGC

My last post also includes a quote from the document. I’ll post it again : A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today’s most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth.

 

[Della]

Yes, they were clearly thinking about it. I just don’t know, from what I saw in this and a few other articles, is how much that really factored into the final decision. I’ve observed a few academic appointments second-hand, and just like in a private business, there are a lot of intangibles that end up going in to succh decisions. Things like how well will this person work with the group, will he be in line with the direction the department is looking to go, is he easy to get along with, do hos particular strengths round out the deficiencies of the others. I’m sure often the people making the decision don’t know exactly what makes them prefer one candidate over another.

So while a judge might make a decision one way or the other, we really can’t know for sure. The most interesting thing for us is to see how the scientific community seemed to perceive his Christian faith. There are other Christians in science - in physics in particular - so I find myself wondering why it raised flags in particular in this instance? Something about the candidate, or that department? Or is it that the political discussion has become so combative that even the possibility of bad press has become an issue?

Considering everyone agrees that he was the most qualified and there was nothing about him being unable to fit into the “group”, it is more than likely he was passed over for giving a talk regarding faith and science. Apparently, that’s forbidden if an academic wants to advance in his career these days.

Of course they have the right to their opinions - though most “creation science” has no scientific credibility, and that has nothing to do with academic freedom being quashed. The scientists at the Vatican observatory would be just as unlikely to want to hire someone who supports many of the arguments widely circulated under that title. THey would be better off if they simply said that science was unreliable on this subject because the creation was a miracle.

But the real problem IMO is the claim that one cannot be a real Christian and support evolution as a scientific theory. That is the claim of fundamentalists and those who are trying to have teaching evolution banned in schools. Because they hear it so often and so loudly the public and it seems parts of the scientific community have begin to accept that those are in fact the terms of the discourse. I actually spoke to a student in a university, a science student - who was unaware that it was really possible for a Christian to be anything other than a YEC supporter. THis young man was a Christian, so one would think he has been at least exposed to other views.

When people are under that impression, it is not surprising they would be suspicious of a scientist who was a Christian.

Scientists, of all people, ought to go by the facts/evidence of the individual case not their impression of extremist positions in judging whether or not someone would be make a good teacher. And I never said that literal creationism should have any kind of standing in the classroom, and neither did he. If scientists go by such impressions it is unfair characterization by loose association. Hardly a good reason to pass over the most qualified person for the job.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Who says that Creation Science is bunk? Can you prove its bunk? NO.

1. Pretty much all serious scientists say creation science is bunk.
2. Yes, you can prove it is bunk by using science. That is why scientists do not believe it.

I certainly do not believe that the world is millions of years old. I do not believe in evolution. It says right in the Bible that God created man in his own image, Not God created man to change over the course of time.

Here is a disconnect between faith and empirical evidence. I certainly hope you don’t believe in a God who requires you to abandon conclusions reached through observation and reason.

Evolution produces measurable predictions and those predictions, when measured, have been found to be accurate. Medicine, just to give some quick examples, uses evolutionary theory to model antibiotic resistance and to choose suitable animals for drug testing before human trials begin.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Considering everyone agrees that he was the most qualified and there was nothing about him being unable to fit into the “group”, it is more than likely he was passed over for giving a talk regarding faith and science. Apparently, that’s forbidden if an academic wants to advance in his career these days.

Scientists, of all people, ought to go by the facts/evidence of the individual case not their impression of extremist positions in judging whether or not someone would be make a good teacher. And I never said that literal creationism should have any kind of standing in the classroom, and neither did he. If scientists go by such impressions it is unfair characterization by loose association. Hardly a good reason to pass over the most qualified person for the job.

It said that public relations would be a factor in the job. He has expressed opinions in the past that were at odds with the department that was hiring him. Is it unreasonable for them to worry that he might give the wrong impression of the department in his public relations roll?

 

[Della]

The article you link is by the last Pope, John Paul II. Can you see how citing this wouldn’t convince someone who isn’t Catholic? Although here is an interesting quote from the article: A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today’s most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth.

I cited it because you stated that faith and reason cannot be “mixed”. And just because the man was a pope doesn’t mean he didn’t know what he was talking about. Who better to address faith and reason than the head of the largest Christian body in the world? I’m happy you appreciate one of his statements. He made it and all his other statements not to “prove” anything but to state the truth. Truth is truth no matter who states it, yes?

I’d be interested to read what these other scientists say, could you provide a link or two? Certainly evolution has been widely accepted by all biologists that are not strongly religious (and a few that are) for over a century; but if you have links to the contrary I’d be interested to see them.

The greatest proponents of evolution have admitted that there are holes in Darwin’s basic assumptions. I don’t need to do any citing of individuals for that–it’s a well known fact. It doesn’t mean that Darwin was completely wrong, but to take everything he stated as gospel without testing his theories is bad science. It’s accepting ideas because it’s what makes one comfortable–and that’s not the purpose of scientific investigation.

You can dismiss my example if you like, but I think it’s valid. However, he was not passed over merely for expressing his belief in God. If anything, it was for expressing a disbelief in the widely accepted theory of evolution, and for saying that it had atheist assumptions and extrapolations.

And that’s a valid reason for passing over a brilliant scientist? That he doesn’t agree with the prevailing theories? Science is all about questioning theories. It’s how science is done. Who is demanding orthodoxy in the teeth of evidence here? Him or those who think he should just get in line and be quiet? What about the freedom to explore all possible theories, popular or unpopular? At one time the theory that the continents were all connected was laughed out of court, but it’s been shown to be the case. The idea that the moon was formed by a collision with a planet-sized object was pooh-poohed until shown it is the most likely explanation. No one should be told to sit down and shut up just because he disagrees with the prevailing thought of the day.

 

[scipio337]

I have no idea why some believe that a person of faith can’t make a good scientist. Some of the great minds of science were religious, from Newton to Pasteur.

“Science and religion are not antagonists. On the contrary, they are sisters. While science tries to learn more about the creation, religion tries to better understand the Creator. While through science man tries to harness the forces of nature around him, through religion he tries to harness the force of nature within him.”

“My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun”

Wernher von Braun, father of the Saturn V rocket engine, godfather of the Apollo space program.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The greatest proponents of evolution have admitted that there are holes in Darwin’s basic assumptions. I don’t need to do any citing of individuals for that–it’s a well known fact. It doesn’t mean that Darwin was completely wrong, but to take everything he stated as gospel without testing his theories is bad science. It’s accepting ideas because it’s what makes one comfortable–and that’s not the purpose of scientific investigation.

Yes, the theory has become more refined as more information becomes available. THAT is how science works.

And that’s a valid reason for passing over a brilliant scientist? That he doesn’t agree with the prevailing theories? Science is all about questioning theories. It’s how science is done. Who is demanding orthodoxy in the teeth of evidence here? Him or those who think he should just get in line and be quiet? What about the freedom to explore all possible theories, popular or unpopular? At one time the theory that the continents were all connected was laughed out of court, but it’s been shown to be the case. The idea that the moon was formed by a collision with a planet-sized object was pooh-poohed until shown it is the most likely explanation. No one should be told to sit down and shut up just because he disagrees with the prevailing thought of the day.

Science is not as much about questioning theories as you seem to think. Progress is typically incremental; a good scientist will state his assumptions clearly when developing a theory. To improve the theory later, scientists will usually tweak the assumptions or develop a method that lets them make an assumption that is more generally correct.

It is frequently stated in science circles, incredible claims require incredible evidence. You can’t just say “I think evolution is wrong” and expect scientists to take you seriously. In order to overturn the vast body of evidence surrounding evolutionary models, you need some pretty incredible evidence to back you up.

 

[didymus]

I have no idea why some believe that a person of faith can’t make a good scientist. Some of the great minds of science were religious, from Newton to Pasteur.

Check out the Catholic Laboratory site/podcast all about everything the Church has contributed to science.

“My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun”

Wernher von Braun, father of the Saturn V rocket engine, godfather of the Apollo space program.

And the V-2!!
youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro

Vunce ze rockets go up,
Who care vere ze com edown?
Zat’s not my department,
Says Werner von Braun.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

 

[Della]

Yes, the theory has become more refined as more information becomes available. THAT is how science works.

Absolutely.

Science is not as much about questioning theories as you seem to think. Progress is typically incremental; a good scientist will state his assumptions clearly when developing a theory. To improve the theory later, scientists will usually tweak the assumptions or develop a method that lets them make an assumption that is more generally correct.

It is frequently stated in science circles, incredible claims require incredible evidence. You can’t just say “I think evolution is wrong” and expect scientists to take you seriously. In order to overturn the vast body of evidence surrounding evolutionary models, you need some pretty incredible evidence to back you up.

Well, certainly scientists build on what has been discovered before them, and rightly so. But, that can’t exclude a new theory that might answer as well as an old one being discussed, considered, and tested. I’m not for tossing out all of evolution, and neither is the scientist we are talking about here. It’s just that some have stated that people of faith can’t make good scientists and that’s patently ridiculous.