Scientist passed over for job because of his faith

[kenofken]

**

What this thread is arguing is whether a science teacher should rightfully be passed over for Creationist beliefs. In my view, a U.S. science teacher has the obligation to teach what the National Academy of Sciences views as real science. And until Darwinian evolution is proven incontrovertably wrong, the teacher should teach the theory as the best explanation of our origins. The theory has been fought over for more than 100 years and no peerage scientist has proved it any less of an explanation for human origins than Darwin originally conjectured. To say that it is “bad science” is ludicrous. It’s incredibly good science to stand up to such tortuous scrutiny for so long, against a sceptical world community of fellows who would love to smash it if they could. Yes, there are holes in the theory, but not nearly as many as ID or Creationist theology. It isn’t very good science at all not to teach the theory, or to teach what a person may feel is wrong with the theory along side of it, as if that particular science teacher has dissertations in paleontology, genetics, geology, and so forth. Hey, when she’s done telling you what’s wrogn with evolutionary biology, why not petition her thoughts on modern medical practices! Maybe she can remove your gall bladder. I mean, how hard could it be!

Piltdown Man? Look, ID scientists did not expose Piltdown Man or any other early human predecessor. It was the checks and balances of the Darwinist scientific community that brought this scandal to everyone’s attention. Atheism is Darwin misappropriated. I believe Darwin was Christian and I once saw his name written on the ceiling of a Protestant chapel that honored great Christian scholars. He was no atheist and would not have approved of it.

In a science classroom, there is no place for an experiment in which a prayer is invoked to get God to boil the water. The water boils whether you pray over the flask or not. This does not invalidate the existence of God or the natural order. It means that God’s laws, which govern the physical universe, are not subject to prayerful petition and cannot be falsified.

And I am not sure I would want to have the “equal time for Bibliocentric Worldviews” in a science classroom, where my beliefs could be ridiculed under the guise of rational skepticism.

Well, that’s my $.02.

N2M4L

That two cents cuts to the core of the issue very well. If a science teacher isn’t teaching science, they’re not doing their job. No Catholic school would, presumably, keep a religion teacher on who refused to teach the Catechism and who insisted that Gnosticism or Catharism be given “equal time.”

 

[1holycatholic]

**

What this thread is arguing is whether a science teacher should rightfully be passed over for Creationist beliefs. In my view, a U.S. science teacher has the obligation to teach what the National Academy of Sciences views as real science. And until Darwinian evolution is proven incontrovertably wrong, the teacher should teach the theory as the best explanation of our origins. The theory has been fought over for more than 100 years and no peerage scientist has proved it any less of an explanation for human origins than Darwin originally conjectured. To say that it is “bad science” is ludicrous. It’s incredibly good science to stand up to such tortuous scrutiny for so long, against a sceptical world community of fellows who would love to smash it if they could. Yes, there are holes in the theory, but not nearly as many as ID or Creationist theology. It isn’t very good science at all not to teach the theory, or to teach what a person may feel is wrong with the theory along side of it, as if that particular science teacher has dissertations in paleontology, genetics, geology, and so forth. Hey, when she’s done telling you what’s wrogn with evolutionary biology, why not petition her thoughts on modern medical practices! Maybe she can remove your gall bladder. I mean, how hard could it be!

Piltdown Man? Look, ID scientists did not expose Piltdown Man or any other early human predecessor. It was the checks and balances of the Darwinist scientific community that brought this scandal to everyone’s attention. Atheism is Darwin misappropriated. I believe Darwin was Christian and I once saw his name written on the ceiling of a Protestant chapel that honored great Christian scholars. He was no atheist and would not have approved of it.

In a science classroom, there is no place for an experiment in which a prayer is invoked to get God to boil the water. The water boils whether you pray over the flask or not. This does not invalidate the existence of God or the natural order. It means that God’s laws, which govern the physical universe, are not subject to prayerful petition and cannot be falsified.

And I am not sure I would want to have the “equal time for Bibliocentric Worldviews” in a science classroom, where my beliefs could be ridiculed under the guise of rational skepticism.

Well, that’s my $.02.

N2M4L

What makes it bad science is the obstinate denial that there are holes in the theory. I’m not arguing the ID be taught as science, descent with modification should be taught with the theory’s deficiencies acknowledged instead of being ignored because “it has to be true.”

 

[1holycatholic]

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.

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.

That’s why he was awarded damages.

 

[Della]

This ISN’T about teachers trying to drag creationism into the secular classroom. It’s about a teacher having the freedom to say he’s a person of faith who teaches science–real science not pseudo-science. The case we are discussing is very disturbing because he was passed over for a position based on bias and hearsay and not at all on his qualifications or the facts. Either we believe in freedom of religion in our schools, for both students and teachers, or we don’t. No one should be penalized merely for stating he believes in God, and that’s what happened here, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

This ISN’T about teachers trying to drag creationism into the secular classroom. It’s about a teacher having the freedom to say he’s a person of faith who teaches science–real science not pseudo-science. The case we are discussing is very disturbing because he was passed over for a position based on bias and hearsay and not at all on his qualifications or the facts. Either we believe in freedom of religion in our schools, for both students and teachers, or we don’t. No one should be penalized merely for stating he believes in God, and that’s what happened here, nothing more and nothing less.

I highly doubt that. His previous lecture materials were likely made available to the college, and his interviewers felt that his objections to evolution were not rooted in sound science.

 

[vz71]

I highly doubt that. His previous lecture materials were likely made available to the college, and his interviewers felt that his objections to evolution were not rooted in sound science.

Is there documentatiomn on this? Can you post it, or at least a link to it?
Such would go a long way to swaying my opinion on this matter.

 

[Della]

I highly doubt that. His previous lecture materials were likely made available to the college, and his interviewers felt that his objections to evolution were not rooted in sound science.

Actually no. They didn’t review his materials but only took it as a given that because he’d given a lecture on faith and science that he must be a creationist–something he never claimed and for which there is no evidence of any kind. This is why the college settled out of court. They knew they didn’t have a leg to stand on–that they’d been unfair. They can’t say that, of course. But, that’s the facts. People in academia are no more likely to be perfect than anyone else. No one is saying they should be, but no one should be treated unfairly on pure hearsay and conjecture, which is what happened here.

 

[kenofken]

If this discussion is supposed to be limited to this particular case, I don’t know that we can have any productive discussion at all. There is no clear public evidence on the facts in this case. This guy’s backers say he was passed over for no other reason that an admission that he believed in God. I find that very hard to believe. On the other hand, the university apparently felt they had some basis for legitimate concern about whether the guy could speak credibly for a high profile position in mainstream science.

But nobody can or will say what that was based upon. If the guy simply maintains that his faith leads him to believe in some intelligence underlying creation, that’s fine. Plenty of very high profile scientists and academics will say the same thing. If, however, he maintains that evolution and an old universe is “just a theory” in the sense that he thinks it’s just some wild conjecture that deserves the same standing as Intelligent Design or Creationism, that’s a very different matter. That indicates that he doesn’t really buy into scientific reasoning and rules of evidence and could not be a real asset to a serious research and teaching institution.

Without any real insight into what really happened, this case just becomes a blank canvas onto which we all project our own agendas regarding faith and science. I think it’s fine to use these stories as a jumping off point for larger discussions, but if this man’s case is truly the subject at hand, we’re basically just going to be talking in circles. All we really know is that this guy was generally considered well qualified. The university had some deep concerns about how his religion might impact his professionalism and acted on it, perhaps with merit, perhaps not. The fact that they settled with him itself tells us very little. It may well mean that the university admitted through its checkbook that the situation was ill handled. On the other hand, they may have had a damn good case but decided that the distraction and media attention simply would not be worth the damage. We’ll never know, so we’re spinning our wheels holding a moot court reenactment of the trial by filling in the facts with our own artistic license.

 

[1holycatholic]

If this discussion is supposed to be limited to this particular case, I don’t know that we can have any productive discussion at all. There is no clear public evidence on the facts in this case. This guy’s backers say he was passed over for no other reason that an admission that he believed in God. I find that very hard to believe. On the other hand, the university apparently felt they had some basis for legitimate concern about whether the guy could speak credibly for a high profile position in mainstream science.

But nobody can or will say what that was based upon. If the guy simply maintains that his faith leads him to believe in some intelligence underlying creation, that’s fine. Plenty of very high profile scientists and academics will say the same thing. If, however, he maintains that evolution and an old universe is “just a theory” in the sense that he thinks it’s just some wild conjecture that deserves the same standing as Intelligent Design or Creationism, that’s a very different matter. That indicates that he doesn’t really buy into scientific reasoning and rules of evidence and could not be a real asset to a serious research and teaching institution.

Without any real insight into what really happened, this case just becomes a blank canvas onto which we all project our own agendas regarding faith and science. I think it’s fine to use these stories as a jumping off point for larger discussions, but if this man’s case is truly the subject at hand, we’re basically just going to be talking in circles. All we really know is that this guy was generally considered well qualified. The university had some deep concerns about how his religion might impact his professionalism and acted on it, perhaps with merit, perhaps not. The fact that they settled with him itself tells us very little. It may well mean that the university admitted through its checkbook that the situation was ill handled. On the other hand, they may have had a damn good case but decided that the distraction and media attention simply would not be worth the damage. We’ll never know, so we’re spinning our wheels holding a moot court reenactment of the trial by filling in the facts with our own artistic license.

Why did you tie the age of the earth to descent with modification? They’re two separate issues.

Here are the relevant facts excerpted from a legal blog:
Social Media Research + Employment Decisions: May Be a Recipe for Litigation
In 2007, the University established a search committee to find a director for the University observatory. The Committee included members of the Physics and Astronomy Department, including the Chair of the Department, Dr. Michael Cavagnero, and staff member Sally Shafer. The Committee was considering 7 applicants with Dr. C. Martin Gaskell ranked as the number one candidate.

“There is no doubt that based on his application, Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position. In fact, Dr. Cavagnero wrote to the [Search] committee that 'Martin Gaskell is clearly the most experienced…” and pointed out that 'Keith [MacAdam] and I visited him last year to learn how to build an observatory on a parking structure.". A few weeks later, Troland [Chair of the Search Committee] wrote the committee that Gaskell ‘has already done everything we could possibly want the observatory director to do.’"
During the search process, Committee member Shafer decided to research Dr. Gaskell on the Internet. Shafer found his University of Nebraska-Lincoln (“UNL”) website which linked to Dr. Gaskell’s personal website. This website contained an article entitled “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation.”

Shafer circulated the article to the Search Committee. The Committee also found notes on Dr. Gaskell’s personal website from a lecture he gave at the University in 1997 on “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation.” The Committee showed these notes to members of the University’s biology department because the notes discussed biological principles. The biologists expressed concern about Gaskell’s “creationist” views and the impact of these views on the University. The biologists warned that the Biology Department would refuse to cooperate with the Physics and Astronomy Department on the building of an “outreach science team” if the Department hired one of “these types of individuals.”

…]

Days before the Search Committee recommended someone else for the position, Professor Thomas Troland, Chair of the Committee sent an email with the subject line, “The Gaskell Affair”:
It has become clear to me that there is virtually no way Gaskell will be offered the job despite his qualifications that stand above those of any other applicant. Other reasons will be given for this choice when we meet Tuesday. In the end, however, the real reason why we will not offer him the job is because of his religious beliefs in matters that that are unrelated to astronomy or to any of the duties specified for this position (For example, the job does not involve outreach in biology.)… If Martin were not so superbly qualified, so breathtakingly above the other applicants in background and experience, then our decision would be much simpler. We could easily choose another applicant, and we could content ourselves with the idea that Martin’s religious beliefs played little role in our decision. However, this is not the case. As it is, no objective observer could possibly believe that we excluded Martin on any basis other than religious…"​

Dr. Gaskell’s website article:
incolor.inetnebr.com/gaskell/Martin_Gaskell_Bible_Astronomy.html

 

[kenofken]

Why did you tie the age of the earth to descent with modification? They’re two separate issues.

Here are the relevant facts excerpted from a legal blog:
Social Media Research + Employment Decisions: May Be a Recipe for Litigation
In 2007, the University established a search committee to find a director for the University observatory. The Committee included members of the Physics and Astronomy Department, including the Chair of the Department, Dr. Michael Cavagnero, and staff member Sally Shafer. The Committee was considering 7 applicants with Dr. C. Martin Gaskell ranked as the number one candidate.

“There is no doubt that based on his application, Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position. In fact, Dr. Cavagnero wrote to the [Search] committee that 'Martin Gaskell is clearly the most experienced…” and pointed out that 'Keith [MacAdam] and I visited him last year to learn how to build an observatory on a parking structure.". A few weeks later, Troland [Chair of the Search Committee] wrote the committee that Gaskell ‘has already done everything we could possibly want the observatory director to do.’"
During the search process, Committee member Shafer decided to research Dr. Gaskell on the Internet. Shafer found his University of Nebraska-Lincoln (“UNL”) website which linked to Dr. Gaskell’s personal website. This website contained an article entitled “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation.”

Shafer circulated the article to the Search Committee. The Committee also found notes on Dr. Gaskell’s personal website from a lecture he gave at the University in 1997 on “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation.” The Committee showed these notes to members of the University’s biology department because the notes discussed biological principles. The biologists expressed concern about Gaskell’s “creationist” views and the impact of these views on the University. The biologists warned that the Biology Department would refuse to cooperate with the Physics and Astronomy Department on the building of an “outreach science team” if the Department hired one of “these types of individuals.”

…]

Days before the Search Committee recommended someone else for the position, Professor Thomas Troland, Chair of the Committee sent an email with the subject line, “The Gaskell Affair”:
It has become clear to me that there is virtually no way Gaskell will be offered the job despite his qualifications that stand above those of any other applicant. Other reasons will be given for this choice when we meet Tuesday. In the end, however, the real reason why we will not offer him the job is because of his religious beliefs in matters that that are unrelated to astronomy or to any of the duties specified for this position (For example, the job does not involve outreach in biology.)… If Martin were not so superbly qualified, so breathtakingly above the other applicants in background and experience, then our decision would be much simpler. We could easily choose another applicant, and we could content ourselves with the idea that Martin’s religious beliefs played little role in our decision. However, this is not the case. As it is, no objective observer could possibly believe that we excluded Martin on any basis other than religious…"​

Dr. Gaskell’s website article:
incolor.inetnebr.com/gaskell/Martin_Gaskell_Bible_Astronomy.html

I tied the two issues together because I have yet to come across an IDevolution/creationist/Darwin skeptic who does not also link them. I have never seen or even heard of any educated high profile ID advocate whose position did not ultimately derive from a literalist Judeo-Christian interpretation of Genesis. They may not cast their arguments in those terms, but sooner or later it becomes evident in their writings and affiliations. I have yet to come across any ID advocate who is an atheist, for example, whose conclusions are driven purely by reasonable scientific logic. I have yet to hear of any who question the validity of evolution while also sharing the consensus view that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Doesn’t mean there aren’t any out there, but the movement is overwhelmingly driven by Biblical literalists who are Christian Evangelicals and a smattering of Orthodox Jews and perhaps the occasional Muslim here and there.

In reading Gaskell’s article, I see nothing that would call into question his reputation as a serious scientist. He doesn’t discount evolution or an old universe. He says that the ultimate truth of creation is more complex than science can presently explain and that he believes it involves the Judeo-Christian God. Lots of scientist share that view. He mostly offers Christians some insights into the complexities of reconciling (or not) various theistic and atheistic interpretations of science.
If he was indeed not hired based solely or primarily on this writing, I would say he got a raw deal and is entitled to some compensation under the terms of justice, if not law. It shows that academic hiring is indeed as political as anything else. If he had been a true ID advocate, I would have no qualms about sending him packing because it is disreputable science and toxic to any serious scientific endeavor. However, search committees should be able to draw the distinction between those folks and a man who appeared to do nothing worse than publish some musings on the intersection between theology and science. A lot of this probably could have been averted by making Gaskell available for a Q&A before the biology department or whoever had these concerns rather than letting hysteria make the call.

 

[1holycatholic]

I tied the two issues together because I have yet to come across an IDevolution/creationist/Darwin skeptic who does not also link them. I have never seen or even heard of any educated high profile ID advocate whose position did not ultimately derive from a literalist Judeo-Christian interpretation of Genesis. They may not cast their arguments in those terms, but sooner or later it becomes evident in their writings and affiliations. I have yet to come across any ID advocate who is an atheist, for example, whose conclusions are driven purely by reasonable scientific logic. I have yet to hear of any who question the validity of evolution while also sharing the consensus view that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Doesn’t mean there aren’t any out there, but the movement is overwhelmingly driven by Biblical literalists who are Christian Evangelicals and a smattering of Orthodox Jews and perhaps the occasional Muslim here and there.

In reading Gaskell’s article, I see nothing that would call into question his reputation as a serious scientist. He doesn’t discount evolution or an old universe. He says that the ultimate truth of creation is more complex than science can presently explain and that he believes it involves the Judeo-Christian God. Lots of scientist share that view. He mostly offers Christians some insights into the complexities of reconciling (or not) various theistic and atheistic interpretations of science.
If he was indeed not hired based solely or primarily on this writing, I would say he got a raw deal and is entitled to some compensation under the terms of justice, if not law. It shows that academic hiring is indeed as political as anything else. If he had been a true ID advocate, I would have no qualms about sending him packing because it is disreputable science and toxic to any serious scientific endeavor. However, search committees should be able to draw the distinction between those folks and a man who appeared to do nothing worse than publish some musings on the intersection between theology and science. A lot of this probably could have been averted by making Gaskell available for a Q&A before the biology department or whoever had these concerns rather than letting hysteria make the call.

An atheist can’t be driven purely by “reasonable scientific logic” because the scientific method presupposes the acceptance of classical metaphysics (specifically teleology) which the atheist explicitly denies.

There is an article Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design and a series of letters in response to the article here that explain the issue.

 

[Della]

If this discussion is supposed to be limited to this particular case, I don’t know that we can have any productive discussion at all. There is no clear public evidence on the facts in this case. This guy’s backers say he was passed over for no other reason that an admission that he believed in God. I find that very hard to believe. On the other hand, the university apparently felt they had some basis for legitimate concern about whether the guy could speak credibly for a high profile position in mainstream science.

But nobody can or will say what that was based upon. If the guy simply maintains that his faith leads him to believe in some intelligence underlying creation, that’s fine. Plenty of very high profile scientists and academics will say the same thing. If, however, he maintains that evolution and an old universe is “just a theory” in the sense that he thinks it’s just some wild conjecture that deserves the same standing as Intelligent Design or Creationism, that’s a very different matter. That indicates that he doesn’t really buy into scientific reasoning and rules of evidence and could not be a real asset to a serious research and teaching institution.

Without any real insight into what really happened, this case just becomes a blank canvas onto which we all project our own agendas regarding faith and science. I think it’s fine to use these stories as a jumping off point for larger discussions, but if this man’s case is truly the subject at hand, we’re basically just going to be talking in circles. All we really know is that this guy was generally considered well qualified. The university had some deep concerns about how his religion might impact his professionalism and acted on it, perhaps with merit, perhaps not. The fact that they settled with him itself tells us very little. It may well mean that the university admitted through its checkbook that the situation was ill handled. On the other hand, they may have had a damn good case but decided that the distraction and media attention simply would not be worth the damage. We’ll never know, so we’re spinning our wheels holding a moot court reenactment of the trial by filling in the facts with our own artistic license.

With all due respect, (I mean that–not being snarky) I have to wonder if you read the article. The facts were all laid out. He never called evolution one of many wild theories and he was the most qualified for the position. He never dragged religion into his classes or taught anything contrary to accepted scientific inquiry. He merely gave one talk on the topic of religion and science and was black-balled because of it. Now, as I stated before, those who wrote emails behind his back accusing him of being a creationist, etc. never heard him speak or even read his lecture. It was a knee-jerk reaction by people afraid that religion was going to creep into their university. God forbid! (Little joke there).

Firstly, no one in this country, where we believe in the free expression of religion and other free speech, ought to be black-balled because of his beliefs.

Secondly, what is academia so afraid of? It is a fact that there are various theories of evolution and that scientists have grown and expanded their understanding of how it works. It is not the pure Darwinian model that has been shown to be too simplistic. Saying so is not a crime nor bad science, it is fact. Why can’t teachers say so? Because some people are afraid religion will be shoved down their throats, something that is a pure chimera because it has never been done in any secular school in America.

This whole thing was about perceptions of truth and fear, not about who was teaching what. If anyone is being persecuted, it isn’t evolutionists, it’s anyone who dares question them or any part of evolutionary theory (and yes, I know the real meaning of the word theory). If evolution, like anything else verifiable, is true it should have no problem standing up against all questions/objections. If the questions/objections can’t even be raised, how can there be true academic freedom? And no, I’m not talking about citing Genesis as objection, but real facts based on real testing and real evidence. Why the irrational fear of such discussion?

 

[kenofken]

With all due respect, (I mean that–not being snarky) I have to wonder if you read the article. The facts were all laid out. He never called evolution one of many wild theories and he was the most qualified for the position. He never dragged religion into his classes or taught anything contrary to accepted scientific inquiry. He merely gave one talk on the topic of religion and science and was black-balled because of it. Now, as I stated before, those who wrote emails behind his back accusing him of being a creationist, etc. never heard him speak or even read his lecture. It was a knee-jerk reaction by people afraid that religion was going to creep into their university. God forbid! (Little joke there).

Firstly, no one in this country, where we believe in the free expression of religion and other free speech, ought to be black-balled because of his beliefs.

Secondly, what is academia so afraid of? It is a fact that there are various theories of evolution and that scientists have grown and expanded their understanding of how it works. It is not the pure Darwinian model that has been shown to be too simplistic. Saying so is not a crime nor bad science, it is fact. Why can’t teachers say so? Because some people are afraid religion will be shoved down their throats, something that is a pure chimera because it has never been done in any secular school in America.

This whole thing was about perceptions of truth and fear, not about who was teaching what. If anyone is being persecuted, it isn’t evolutionists, it’s anyone who dares question them or any part of evolutionary theory (and yes, I know the real meaning of the word theory). If evolution, like anything else verifiable, is true it should have no problem standing up against all questions/objections. If the questions/objections can’t even be raised, how can there be true academic freedom? And no, I’m not talking about citing Genesis as objection, but real facts based on real testing and real evidence. Why the irrational fear of such discussion?

You missed my most recent post. Yes, I did read his article after someone posted a link here and I agree that it contains no reasonable cause for rejecting his application.

That said, I have no problem with the instinct to keep ID/Creationists out of school curricula and science departments. Not because mechanisms of evolution ought to be exempt from criticism and competing theories, but because ID is a theological agenda in the guise of a pseudoscience. They neither accept nor practice any of science’s methods of discovery. They produce no testable hypotheses or sound experimental science and then when people call it for the scam it is, they issue the cry of the conspiracy theorists: that their “science” is being suppressed by “the system.” Academic freedom does not require us to indulge junk science. Lots of theories within the framework of evolution have been challenged and overturned or greatly modified. Species we thought were related based on morphology turned out not to be so once we could examine DNA. Theories about how populations evolve in response to particular environmental pressures are being revised all the time.

But there’s been no alternative theory put forth which merits discounting evolution as a whole, or the case for an old Earth and universe. I’ve told ID folks on here before that if they can produce a plausible and testable model of how everything we think we know about biology and cosmology is wrong, one that doesn’t rely on hinky logic or an appeal to God, Satan or magical mechanisms, I’ll be happy to share lab space with them. Proving Darwin, Einstein and Hawking dead wrong would be the coup of the millennium. I have yet to see such a research proposal, and it ain’t because Darwinian dogma is keeping them down. It’s because they got nothing to bring to the table other than semantic shell games.

I actually happen to think Gaskell’s writing is fascinating. He proposes that both religion and science allude to the larger and infinitely complex truth about creation, each in their own way. He makes a strong case that neither way of knowing can prove or disprove the validity of the other.

 

[Della]

You missed my most recent post. Yes, I did read his article after someone posted a link here and I agree that it contains no reasonable cause for rejecting his application.

That said, I have no problem with the instinct to keep ID/Creationists out of school curricula and science departments. Not because mechanisms of evolution ought to be exempt from criticism and competing theories, but because ID is a theological agenda in the guise of a pseudoscience. They neither accept nor practice any of science’s methods of discovery. They produce no testable hypotheses or sound experimental science and then when people call it for the scam it is, they issue the cry of the conspiracy theorists: that their “science” is being suppressed by “the system.” Academic freedom does not require us to indulge junk science. Lots of theories within the framework of evolution have been challenged and overturned or greatly modified. Species we thought were related based on morphology turned out not to be so once we could examine DNA. Theories about how populations evolve in response to particular environmental pressures are being revised all the time.

I don’t disagree that science shouldn’t be clouded with theological or philosophical baggage. I think it’s impossible for anyone to leave his personal bias/beliefs at the door of the classroom, though. No one should be forced into silence in that regard. We’re human beings not machines. Science is conducted by human beings–fallible human beings. ID isn’t science nor is Creationism–they are attempts to explain why not attempts to explain how things are as they are, so they have no place in scientific inquiry and no one here is saying they should, that I know of.

But there’s been no alternative theory put forth which merits discounting evolution as a whole, or the case for an old Earth and universe. I’ve told ID folks on here before that if they can produce a plausible and testable model of how everything we think we know about biology and cosmology is wrong, one that doesn’t rely on hinky logic or an appeal to God, Satan or magical mechanisms, I’ll be happy to share lab space with them. Proving Darwin, Einstein and Hawking dead wrong would be the coup of the millennium. I have yet to see such a research proposal, and it ain’t because Darwinian dogma is keeping them down. It’s because they got nothing to bring to the table other than semantic shell games.

Well, ID isn’t a scientific theory, which is why it isn’t testable. It’s more like seeing the meaning in art or in the beauty of creation. It’s a mechanism for saying how those who believe in God can give credit to him for creation. So, if people try to use it to refute scientific theories it just isn’t going to work. That’s how I see it, anyway. Others would have to speak for themselves.

I actually happen to think Gaskell’s writing is fascinating. He proposes that both religion and science allude to the larger and infinitely complex truth about creation, each in their own way. He makes a strong case that neither way of knowing can prove or disprove the validity of the other.

Yes. I agree with that too. It’s like the Shroud of Turin–one of those elusive things that neither science nor religion can quite explain if looked at only from the view point of one or the other. It’s a mystery. There are many mysteries that science simply cannot explain and there are certain things that religion isn’t suited to describe, either. There’s no reason why they can’t compliment each other, IMHO. I love science programs and get a lot out of them because they tell me a lot of things about faith because I view everything through the eyes of faith, but I don’t want science to try to tell me anything about theology because it’s not capable of doing that nor designed for that. Does that make sense?

 

[kenofken]

I don’t disagree that science shouldn’t be clouded with theological or philosophical baggage. I think it’s impossible for anyone to leave his personal bias/beliefs at the door of the classroom, though. No one should be forced into silence in that regard. We’re human beings not machines. Science is conducted by human beings–fallible human beings. ID isn’t science nor is Creationism–they are attempts to explain why not attempts to explain how things are as they are, so they have no place in scientific inquiry and no one here is saying they should, that I know of.

Well, ID isn’t a scientific theory, which is why it isn’t testable. It’s more like seeing the meaning in art or in the beauty of creation. It’s a mechanism for saying how those who believe in God can give credit to him for creation. So, if people try to use it to refute scientific theories it just isn’t going to work. That’s how I see it, anyway. Others would have to speak for themselves.

Yes. I agree with that too. It’s like the Shroud of Turin–one of those elusive things that neither science nor religion can quite explain if looked at only from the view point of one or the other. It’s a mystery. There are many mysteries that science simply cannot explain and there are certain things that religion isn’t suited to describe, either. There’s no reason why they can’t compliment each other, IMHO. I love science programs and get a lot out of them because they tell me a lot of things about faith because I view everything through the eyes of faith, but I don’t want science to try to tell me anything about theology because it’s not capable of doing that nor designed for that. Does that make sense?

Makes perfect sense to me. I don’t think there is any inherent clash between science and religion because they attempt to answer very different questions in very different ways. However, there is a strong contingent of Biblical literalists on this forum who frequently try to spin ID or like agendas as science. Strange, I know on a Catholic forum, but no stranger I suppose than the likes of a pagan scientist like me running loose!

 

[Della]

Makes perfect sense to me. I don’t think there is any inherent clash between science and religion because they attempt to answer very different questions in very different ways. However, there is a strong contingent of Biblical literalists on this forum who frequently try to spin ID or like agendas as science. Strange, I know on a Catholic forum, but no stranger I suppose than the likes of a pagan scientist like me running loose!

Well, many faithful Christians feel that certain scientific theories run counter to their understanding of how God created the universe, so they feel they have to defend their interpretation to the death for the honor of God. Actually, God can take care of himself and it’s most often their own ideas they can’t stand to give up not really defense of God or of faith, although they can’t see that. People don’t always understand their own motivations for their reactions and their way of thinking. I believe knowing our true place before God and others is the sure way not to fall into that trap. It takes humility, something most of us struggle with no matter who we are, yes?