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.
Only those who “reason and judge” the way the majority do are fit for hiring? Is that not exactly the way those “climate change” frauds reasoned?
Fabricating data is not reasoning.
“The vast majority of Christians are not literalists or creationists. Those few who are certainly do not qualify to teach in a field of science requiring reason and judgement, and as I implied, neither would the “climate change” frauds who fabricated years of climate data to create the myth of global warming.”
So if those who ARE “literalists or creationists” would just believe as the majority do, then they would qualify?
Did not the “climate change” frauds say THEY were in the majority and that the consensus opinion was theirs?
“Those few who are certainly do not qualify to teach in a field of science requiring reason and judgement”
Is that not the reasoning of those data fabricators toward the climate change skeptics? And why those viewed as being in the minority opinion camp had their qualifications as scientists questioned just as you do in the above quote?
“..and as I implied, neither would the “climate change” frauds who fabricated years of climate data to create the myth of global warming.”
But they were teaching and being touted as the goto “experts” and holding positions of authority. They were the scientists who had “reason and judgement” and all who dared disagree were just those who were unwilling to accept the “facts”.
So how is your reasoning in your statement any different?
HELLO Right Wing Professor! It's great to see you again! (You have been missed.)
I hope you won't be a stranger around here. I'd love it, if you would share your views re: "creationism" from time to time.
Thank you so very much for the conclusion your drawn re: the travails of Martin Gaskell: "There is no place in science for this sort of intolerance."
I so agree!
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Roger that . . . on all counts.
Perhaps you forgot:
"There is no such thing as a "law of nature" that controls nature or that exists as something according to which nature must "act."
Actually mom, this is an instance of good cop/bad cop, as played by Darwinian imams at the behest of their mullahs. Some too, do the ‘good’ cop in all sincerity, convinced of the rightness in bringing the two sides together (in politics we would call these latter folks ‘moderates’).
In its essentials, the Enlightenment has, frequently and unnecessarily, split knowledge in two contradictory spheres: facts (science) v values (ethics, religion, the humanities). The trouble arises when one side or another decides that its view must prevail in all matters public and private. In the last century or so, the trend has been to grant science the authority to decide what is true, objective, and rational, while consigning ethics and religion (particularly Judeo-Christian belief) to the realm of subjective opinion and nonrational experience. This dichotomy has come to be described by some as a ‘public,’ or ‘official’ view v opinions based on private judgments or ‘tribal prejudice.’
Of course the problem with this perspective is that there is no such thing as a disembodied ‘public’ or ‘official’ entity reigning over us justly and with beneficence. The public sector is populated with politicians and bureaucrats, all making official decisions based on political expediency or, when possible, on their own ‘tribal’ prejudices, and it appears that a particular set of tribal prejudices have come to dominate. The other problem is that, bit by bit, government has come to command our society to such an extent that it dictates how we shall conduct ourselves far more than it has any business doing. “Government by the people and for the people” no longer exists here, nor does it exist anywhere in the world.
Depending on how the Darwinian mullahs judge the public mood, they become more less aggressive in pressing their agenda.
When feeling secure in their role as members of the cultural priesthood, the mullahs trot out the bad cop to insist that Science has discredited any claim Judeo-Christian belief has to public fealty, and that Judeo-Christians should just simply go sit down over in the corner and shut up.
When, however, the mullahs sense some degree of restiveness in the public at this imposition of naturalistic materialism under the guise of science, they bring out the good cop. This is when we hear a lot of talk about the significant number of scientists who are religious (more or less) and how we should never mix science with religion and that the two really belong in two separate (but equal) realms.
Now, we’ve had considerable experience with this separate but equal business, and what we’ve learned is that separate is never equal (nor was it ever intended to be).
You take the remark out of context. Elsewhere I also said there are people who would discriminate against others just because of their religious beliefs. My point was that this isn't happening in the scientific world. The supposed examples of Expelled have all been shown to be whiners pulling the religion card.
Could you imagine the fallout if someone made that claim about a minority? Substitute *black* or *Hispanic* for *young earth* and *creationist* and see where it gets you.
That's not quite accurate. Would you hire someone if he sincerely believed the world was on the back of a turtle? Doesn't that tell you something about his ability for rational thought? It could logically contribute to a hiring decision because it could impact his ability to do the work. Would you hire a Marxist? That's another thing a person can choose to believe that could affect his work. These are things people choose to believe, not a skin color.
That’s usually how it works. Candidates usually know their chances of getting tenure in advance. Most who know they won’t get it don’t bother. Some still try obviously, either because they have a chip on their shoulder, or because there is a small pool of qualified people fighting for the limited slots.
In a properly structured paragraph, the first sentence is the topic sentence. It presents the foundation for the paragraph.
I take it from the above that your background is not in the physical sciences.
I suggest that you pick up some books by Einstein.
Yeah, and all those on the record emails from NCSE to persons in the Smithsonian concerning Sternberg and the publication of the Meyer article don't exist. Yeah right.
Then it's not a lie.
What's not a lie? The 91%? Like most things DI does, they're smart enough to usually stay away from flat-out lies. They prefer more insidious dishonesty and disinformation. 91% is correct -- for the whole university. But the department he tried to get tenure in, the only one that matters for this case, has a 66% tenure rate over 10 years. That's why you can't trust anything from DI, they have a history of twisting the truth.
I never said such people don't exist. But Sternberg was another perfect case of whining. "They took away my keys!" Yeah, all researchers lost their keys, to be replaced by key cards. "They made me move my office!" Yeah, a bunch of people moved, not just you, and you were given the office of your choice. Despite some nasty people saying nasty things, there is zero evidence any unwarranted negative action was taken against Sternberg. In fact, his status as an ID whiner even had one Smithsonian employee offering to sponsor him so as to not give him further reason to whine.
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.