Posted on 02/18/2011 8:40:28 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Dr Martin Gaskell is a respected expert on supermassive black holes and a long-serving research fellow at the University of Texas.
In 2007, Dr Martin Gaskell applied for the position of director at the new MacAdam student observatory at the University of Kentucky. He stood "breathtakingly above the other applicants in background and experience" according to the chairman of the selection panel, but he did not get the job. Unsurprisingly, he sued.
It is not controversial to state that English-born Gaskell is a devout Christian. He has also said that he is sceptical about certain aspects of evolutionary theory and that he respects creationists for being true to the Bible. However, his own views have more nuance and he probably belongs somewhere in the broad church usually labelled "theistic evolution". But the mere fact he was sympathetic towards creationists and kept an open mind about evolution appears to have disqualified him from being director of the observatory. As the chairman of the selection committee emailed afterwards, "no objective observer could possibly believe that we excluded Martin on any basis other than religion ... "
The case was about to go to trial. But, last month, the university caved in and settled out of court. Gaskell was given a payoff of $125,000, although the university refused to admit any wrong-doing. Nonetheless, this appears to be an unambiguous example of religious discrimination within the American academy. It is hard to imagine the university would have settled if they were sure of their ground.
The case has given rise to a certain amount of hand-wringing in anti-creationist circles.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Acceptable to me.
So then why did you ask me “how do you figure?”
You didnt ask one.. you didnt even imply one..
If the third human on this planet didnt come from the so-called (lets call them)Adam and Eve.. where did "IT" come from?..
There must have been a third human at some time.. thats the way numbers work.. and procreation..
ELSE.. a very large even more simplistic Yarn must be built... to explain it all..
Science fiction requires logic or whats the point..
Reality need not be logical at all.. (nothing to prove)..
Nope. The similarities between evolutionists and global warming fanatics exists because both positions are not merely unscientific, but are so in a fundamentally dishonest way. Let's face it - evolution, indeed the whole naturalistic, materialistic basis on which it rests, is unscientific idiocy. A sophomore chemistry student knows enough to demonstrate the complete folly of believing in the naturalistic abiogenesis theories of the evos. Wishful thinking and an inside-the-bubble social autism are what drives belief in evolution.
Rich in adjectival labelings. Weak in evidence.
The core of science is observed evidence—evidence that anyone can see, from fossils to self-organizing crystals. {poof} does not meet this requirement.
For an example of how a stupid ‘scientist’ can mis-state and mislead, see:
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/schempp.html
You're right - evolution IS weak in evidence.
Didn’t ask? Um... I’m afraid I did. It was the sentence in post #9 that ended with this “?”, a question mark.
Geez - How do you figure that the Tennessee vs Scopes case has made it acceptable to discriminate against evolution skeptics? In my opinion, it has always been acceptable.
Except it isn’t. There are several billion years worth of evidence that has been studied extensively for the last 150 years. The Theory of Evolution is as robust as a theory can be. Those who chose to ignore that fact and engage in mindless and willful ignorance while purporting to support the insidious half-baked nonsense that masquerades as science under the pseudonym intelligent design, are simply incapable of the type of critical thought needed to understand the nature of evidence and the scientific method.
“The Theory of Evolution is as robust as a theory can be.”
So it is still a theory? I’m no scientist and didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I thought theories are unproven.
“...still a theory?” In science, there is nothing more profound than a theory - they are ALL unproven. Ever been sick and had a doctor give you a pill? Germ theory. Experienced an earthquake? Tectonic theory. Flown in an airplane? Gravitational theory. Theories are not best guesses - they are the culmination of information and practical knowledge that shape and articulate the way we interact with the natural world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.