Posted on 12/13/2010 11:18:17 AM PST by SeekAndFind
An astronomer is suing the University of Kentucky, claiming he was denied a job running its observatory because of his Christian faith.
Martin Gaskell was once considered the leading candidate to be the founding director of the observatory, opened in 2008.
The Courier-Journal reports that a trial has been set for Feb. 8 after a federal judge ruled Gaskell has the right to a jury trial.
Gaskell argues that the school discriminated against him because he had given lectures in the past discussing astronomy and the Bible and his questions about the theory of evolution, even though he accepts it.
The university acknowledges there were questions about his beliefs, but there was valid scientific concern. It also claims there were other factors in denying him the job, including a poor performance review in a previous job.
Anyone who has been in the workforce any length of time likely has one of these lurking in their past. Considering the nature of the muddleheaded district manager who gave me the one I have from decades ago, I was proud that he and I did not see eye to eye at the time. He lied to me about an operational matter, and I wouldn't kiss ass.
One 'bad performance review' is not damning, imho.
RE: You stand by your bias towards the religious. Say hello to Al Sharpton next time you see him. You at least have one thing in common, susceptability to card pulling.
I stand by what I believe to be the FACTS. The accusation that he did not publish anything substantial while at ISU is pure malarkey and you ought to know that before invoking the “holy” ( note the quotes ) name of Al “I have a scheme” Sharpton.
Gonzalez was at ISU from 2001 to 2008. There are few folks trying to make a case that Gonzalez’s prestigious record of publication isn’t up to snuff, and that somehow he’s not been productive during his time at ISU. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Please note the high publication rate of Gonzalez compared to other ISU astronomers in 2006 ALONE !
Gonzalez’s raw publication count in 2006 alone was six publications — which was equaled only by one other astronomer in the department.
SEE THIS PDF FILE :
http://www.evolutionnews.org/GGAnnualData.pdf
Here are just samples of his REFEREED PUBLICATIONS (which he either authored or co-authored) DURING HIS TENURE AT ISU :
* G. Gonzalez and G. Wallerstein, “The Spectrum of VY Canis Majoris in 2000 February,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 113, 954 (2001).
* B. E. Reddy, G. Gonzalez, D. L. Lambert and D. Young, “Spectroscopic Analysis of Two Carbon-Rich Post-AGB Stars,” Astrophysical Journal, 564, 482 (2002).
* G. Gonzalez and E. J. Gaidos , “Stellar Atmospheres of Nearby Young Solar Analogs,” New Astronomy, 7, 211 (2002).
* B. E. Reddy, G. Gonzalez, D. L. Lambert, C. Laws, and K. Covey, “A Search for 6Li in Stars with Planets,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 335, 1005 (2002).
* J. Armstrong, L. E. Wells, and G. Gonzalez, “Rummaging through Earth’s Attic for Remains of Ancient Life,” Icarus, 160, 183 (2002).
* G. Gonzalez, “Stars, Planets, and Metals,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 75, 101 (2003) (invited review paper).
* L. E. Wells, J. Armstrong, and G. Gonzalez, “Reseeding of Early Earth by Impacts of Returning Ejecta During the Late Heavy Bombardment,” Icarus, 162, 38 (2003).
* G. Gonzalez, C. Laws, K. M. Walker, S. Tyagi, K. Snider, J. Dodsworth, K. Snider, and N. B. Suntzeff, “Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets VII: New Abundance Analyses of 30 Systems,” Astronomical Journal, 125, 2664 (2003).
* K. R. Covey, G. Gonzalez, G. Wallerstein, A. D. Vanture, and N. B. Suntzeff, “A Reinvestigation of the Possible Metallicity Spread in NGC 3201,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 819 (2003).
* C. Laws and G. Gonzalez, “A Re-evaluation of the Super Li-rich star J37 in NGC 6633,” Astrophysical Journal, 595, 1148 (2003).
* G. Tautvaisiene, G. Wallerstein, D. Geisler, G. Gonzalez, and C. Charbonnel, “Elemental Abundances of three Red Giants in Terzan 7, a Globular Cluster Associated with the Sagittarius Galaxy,” Astronomical Journal, 127, 373 (2004).
* I. I. Ivans, C. Sneden, G. Wallerstein, R. P. Kraft, J. E. Norris, J. P. Fulbright, and G. Gonzalez, “On the Question of a Metallicity Spread in Globular Cluster M22 (NGC 6656),” Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 75, 286 (2004).
* D. Geisler, V. V. Smith, G. Wallerstein, G. Gonzalez, and C. Charbonnel, “’Sculptor’-ing the Galaxy? The Chemical Compositions of Red Giants in the Sculptor Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy,” Astronomical Journal, 129, 1428 (2005).
* S. Giridhar, D. L. Lambert, B. E. Reddy, G. Gonzalez, D. Yong, “Abundance Analyses of Field RV Tauri Stars, VI: An Extended Sample,” Astrophysical Journal, 627, 432 (2005).
* G. Gonzalez, “Habitable Zones in the Universe,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, 35, 555 (2005).
* G. Gonzalez, “Condensation Temperatures Trends Among Stars with Planets,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 367, L37 (2006).
* G. Gonzalez, “The Sun’s Interior Metallicity Constrained by Neutrinos,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, L90 (2006).
* G. Gonzalez, “Indium Abundance Trends Among Sun-like Stars,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 371, 781 (2006).
* G. Gonzalez, “The Chemical Compositions of Stars with Planets: A Review,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 1494 (2006) (invited review paper).
* A. D. Vanture, V. V. Smith, J. Lutz, G. Wallerstein, D. Lambert, G. Gonzalez, “Correlation Between Lithium and Technetium Absorption Lines in the Spectra of Galactic S Stars,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 119, 147 (2007).
And oh yeah, those are just a SUBSET of his SCORES of publications BEFORE his tenure at ISU.
I am not going to bore you with his writings for Scientific American or other contributed papers he wrote between 2001 and 2008.
Additionally, an extremely important measure of a scientist’s reputation is the impact his or her research is having upon a field as measured by the number of citations to that scientist’s work in research articles by other scientists. In short, the more times a scientist’s work has been cited by others, the greater the impact of his work on his particular field.
By this standard, Iowa State University (ISU) astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez has performed incredibly well, despite his denial of tenure by ISU.
No matter how they spin it, one thing is clear, Gonzalez was professionally QUALIFIED for tenure.
Intolerant Darwinists at ISU just didn’t want to give it to him because he’s a proponent of intelligent design.
Some of you may remember me :-)
I know Martin Gaskell. In fact he was my daughter’s undergraduate research advisor. She is now completing a Ph.D. in Astronomy at Cornell.
He did an outstanding job as advisor to the undergraduate research program here at the University of Nebraska. Many of his students have gone on to pursue doctorates and careers in astronomy. He is not a Young Earth Creationist, and he teaches orthodox astronomy. His religious views, which are pretty mainstream, do not in any way impact his teaching. His only involvement with anything to do with evolution here in Nebraska was that he was faculty advisor to the Intelligent Design club. As a matter of fact, they asked me first (because knowing I was a conservative they thought I must be an evolution-skeptic) and I advised them to talk to him. Undergraduate clubs deserve a faculty advisor, whether or not he wholeheartedly embraces their views.
I am an atheist and an outspoken critic of creationism. At the same time, I think this is a travesty, and I hope Gaskell wins. Gaskell is a fantastic teacher of astronomy; at the university, he was evangelical about his science, not his faith.
There is no place in science for this sort of intolerance.
Thanks for the info. I wish all atheists were as open minded and tolerant as you.
All the best to your daughter :)
You left out a word. One that my statement included.
“In fact, drawing these parallels and getting you to see the connection is a tactic of cold-reader hucksters.”
Derrida deconstruction in action.
“Take what I described and you apply the appropriate ones from your list.”
Judeo-Christians. All Creationists. They differ in some particulars. They share a common culture. I think your real objection is that they follow the Judeo-Christian God. Or perhaps that they follow a religion of any sort. Do your own work.
“The point is that they exist.”
The point is that by lumping them together you can indiscriminately smear them all as frenzied zealots (Derrida deconstruction).
“I know of no Christian who does not hold as a fundamental tenet of belief that God is the creator of the Universe. Do you?”
”Back to the beginning, that's what my professor thought. He just didn't believe the literal creation.
Oh, I see. Your professor held as a fundamental tenet of belief that the Judeo-Christian God is the creator of the Universe, but not literally so. He found it “incredible” that the Creator was capable of “setting up all these intricate, interrelated laws of physics to make things happen as they did.” But, not literally. It wasn’t really real. Just a mythical construct. That’s no creation, and no Creator, at all. Those clunks you’ve been hearing from time to time are the hints I’ve been dropping that your rationale is nothing more than a bundle of contradictions.
You quote Ashley Montagu rather carelessly using the word ‘proof.’ This forum has, for years, been hammered by “scientists” and “friends” of Science, insisting that ‘proof’ is not a word to be used in connection with science. ‘Proof’ can properly be used in mathematics, in logic, in religion, in philosophy, in forensics, even in ordinary conversation, but not in science. Now, we are to take Mr. Montagu seriously? He is clever perhaps (surely, he is clever), in his wordsmithing, but his point is to make an unfavorable comparison using the misapplication of a word (more Derrida deconstruction).
#120
“And whenever someone tries to pass religion off as science, for me a red flag goes up. We all have our hangups.”
Surely, you refer not to Moi? Your other antagonists and their “hang-ups,” perhaps? What I object to is misanthropic attempts to dismiss Holy Scripture as nothing more than myth.
“. . . the myth that science is a cabal of atheists intent on destroying religion.”
Red herring. The myth is that a cabal of Atheists and Agnostics are not using Science in an attempt to destroy the Judeo-Christian tradition of Western Civilization.
“I don't often agree with the likes of Dawkins who have for themselves essentially turned atheism into a quasi-religion.”
Quasi-religion? Atheism is a religion. No more subject to the rules of Science than any other religion. But Dawkins and his ilk try to pass off Science as “proof” that there is no God (The God Delusion).
“Show me. Persecution complex is common in religions”
Just a ways back you announced that at times you’ve defended Catholics and Jews (“I'm not Catholic or Jewish, but at times I find myself defending them”). From what? Why defend a paranoiac suffering a persecution complex? Now, according to you, there’s nothing to defend. It’s all in their feverish minds. I referenced this forum as providing examples of attacks on the Judeo-Christian tradition. But you’re in such a state of denial that I imagine you can not admit to even so obvious examples as those.
Give your daughter my best wishes for a successful career and a successful life.
Few people who know me would accuse me of being open minded or tolerant.
The point is, this smacks of Jacobinism. I would be the first to argue against Martin, were he a biology professor. The point is, he isn’t. He’s an observational astrophysicist, and a very good one. He has no problem with the standard model of the Universe; actually, some of his research strongly supports it. He has some funny ideas about biology, but then I know some atheist physicists who have funny ideas about biology.
My daughter, who’s as atheistic as I am (she made her mind up about this independently; her mother’s Christian) says in three years working with Martin, she had no idea what his views on evolution were. And nor had I, from direct interaction. I knew from friends.He’s English, and they are naturally diffident.
I emailed him today, and he sounded pretty confident. He says it’s not about him, but about policy. And having read the court documents, I think he’s right. If I were UK, I’d settle, and be prepared to setlle high.
It's great to "see" you here, RWP!
I know people who were set up to be fired from jobs by having been given poor performance reviews.
If the company can bide it’s time, it’s a convenient way to get rid of someone.
Running an observatory is more an administrative type position. His religious beliefs are irrelevant to his ability to do that job.
But that won’t stop the science by consensus, got an agenda crowd.
amd Indeed. Such is truly the workings of an amazing and transcendent God. A God who goes “poof” and things happen is a God that even a child can understand.
OK. Then explain how God did it with *poof*.
What was the mechanism that made everything appear instantaneously? How much power did it take? Where'd the matter come from? How was it formed?
If it's so simple that a child can understand it, you shouldn't have any problem telling us how He just popped matter into existence in fully formed, highly organized, properly functioning systems.
If the end product is the same, how is it that it took longer any more incredible than if it took less time? Why is the time frame the criteria for determining that than the fact that God was able to do it.
Any God capable of creating all known matter and producing the universe we observe and live in is pretty incredible regardless of the length of time involved in the mechanism.
Claiming that the God who took longer is somehow a greater God is merely human rationalization to support their POV. It's simply an opinion.
Indeed. Thanks for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
It's the same story today. Only now it's *science*(peer review panels) doing it and not the church.
That's why I worded it in the manner I did.
Once it was heresy to claim that the sun was more than a few thousand years old because calculations showed that it would have burned all the fuel. Now we know the atomic reactions involved and that it has enough fuel to burn for millions of years. I am sure that people in that day used logic similar to yours in justifying that the age of the solar system was just a few thousand years.
Disregard my last. I reread your post and the preceding links and I have no idea what you are saying.
So, nobody was officially convicted of perjury and yet you go about stating it as fact.
That's the sort of subjective, partial nonsense that really cuts into the credibility of those who claim the objectivity of being a alleged scientist. It's very unworthy of them. And you.
But the evidence clearly shows Bonsell and Buckingham lied on multiple occasions. In one case in their depositions they lied about the source of funds for the purchase of the Pandas book. Not only that, but it was a lie that affected the court procedings, as it caused the plaintiffs to not seek a temporary restraining order. They must have been friends with the DA, because that was a slam-dunk perjury case.
Innocent until proved guilty. If there was no formal charge and conviction of perjury, it's slanderous to state that they perjured themselves as if it were a fact.
If "faith" is even part of this person's situation, he "spoke" or "acted" in some way to make his "faith" a problem to his job. Actions have consequences.
Personally, I wouldn't hire a "young earth", "creationist" type idiot for anything requiring thinking above the turnip level.
You just contradicted yourself. You WOULD punish someone for their beliefs - for believing or not believing any certain way. And you even state how you'd do it - you wouldn't hire them based on that criteria.
Thank you for being such a splendid example of the bias that so many *scientists* here on FR claim doesn't exist.
You have clearly demonstrated that the claim that this guy is making that his situation is because of his beliefs, is valid.
This either/or situation that these anti-God and anti-Scripture types set up are based on false premises.
It isn’t either what they claim the literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis should be OR it has to be totally metaphorical. What they are offering as the only two possible options is not realistic at all. They are setting themselves up as the judges of what conditions are permitted to be considered and eliminating all others. They are offering two extreme scenarios and demanding that one only be allowed to choose only one of THEIR choices.
What they’re doing is creating a false premise. Of course the logic breaks down as their premises are totally faulty.
What they need to do and won’t, is look at what Genesis is really saying in the Hebrew, instead of demanding a simplistic, face value reading of the English translation or an acceptance of the whole thing as metaphor.
This is intellectually dishonest of them and unworthy of someone who claims to be an objective scientist. They are the tactics of someone with an agenda who’s afraid to look at the truth lest their preferred worldview collapse under too close scrutiny.
Isaac Newton himself would be a victim of the modern science crowd.
He’d have been laughed out of the scientific world for much of what he wrote.
It's not a myth when you see the likes of Dawkins doing that very thing.
Science has become the weapon of choice of the atheists with which to bludgeon Christianity.
It is no myth these days.
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.