Sue them and stew them. Lather, rinse and repeat.
More here :
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/12/13/theological-correctness/
Monday, December 13, 2010, 11:16 AM
Joseph Knippenberg
A federal judge in Kentucky has denied the University of Kentucky’s motion for summary judgment, paving the way for a jury trial on the merits of astronomer C. Martin Gaskell’s claim that the University engaged in religious discrimination when it did not offer him the postion of Founding Director of its observatory.
There appears to be no dispute about the quality of Gaskell’s scholarly work, nor about his record of already having done what the University of Kentucky needed done. But—gasp!—he has lectured on “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation” in a way that some biologists regard as creationist. Given these passages from his lecture notes, how they could do so with any intellectual integrity is beyond me:
“God made everything pretty much as it is now in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago” – the so-called “Creationist” position (a bad name! – I, and many writers on the subject prefer the name “Young-Earth Creationist” for this position). This is the position of the Creation Research Society (CRS), the San Diego based Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and a number of other “Creation Science” organizations. I have a lot of respect for people who hold this view because they are strongly committed to the Bible, but I don’t believe it is the interpretation the Bible requires of itself, and it certainly clashes head-on with science.
“The Answers are not in yet”. This is part of my own viewpoint. I believe that God has not yet revealed everything to us in the Bible (see Deuteronomy 29:29 and I Corinthians 13:9-10,12) and I know that we don’t know all the answers in science yet.
The main controversy has been between people at the two extremes (young earth creationists and humanistic evolutionists). “Creationists” attack the science of “evolutionists”. I believe that this sort of attack is very bad both scientifically and theologically. The “scientific” explanations offered by “creationists” are mostly very poor science and I believe this sort of thing actually hinders some (many?) scientists becoming Christians. It is true that there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory (a good thing or else many biologists and geologists would be out of a job) and that these problems are bigger than is usually made out in introductory geology/biology courses, but the real problem with humanistic evolution is in the unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations. It is the latter that “creationists” should really be attacking (many books do, in fact, attack these unwarranted assumptions and extrapolations).While discussing controversies and interpretations of Genesis I should mention something that has been much debated in recent years but is not an interpretation of Genesis: what is called “Intelligent Design”. This movement, which is often erroneously confused with young-earth creationism, is just exploring the question of what evidence there is in the universe for design by an intelligence. This is really a general, non-religious question (although with obvious religious implications), and there is no opinion on the interpretation of Genesis.
The University contends in part that because the position for which he was applying involved public outreach, there was legitimate concern that he would use his affiliation with the University to promote his private religious views. If this position stands, then woe be unto any of us who teach at public institutions, have private religious opinions that somehow find their way into our work (perhaps even for good reasons), and are identified by our institutional affiliation. Wouldn’t that be a kind of viewpoint discrimination?
The case goes to trial in February and bears watching.
There’s a story about a young man who applied for the job of teaching at a one-room school up in the Ozark hills. He was interviewed by the president of the school board, who asked him if he believed the earth was round or flat. He pondered a minute, then answered “I can teach it either way”.
Obama’s “War on Science”?
Is that even allowed?
My boss: Oh, by the way, I see you had a bad performance eval at your previous job. I'm gonna have to dock you some pay.
Me: But that was 10 years ago! I was barely old enough to drink let alone do well in a new job about which I was totally green.
My boss: Well, we still think your performance 10 years ago affects your current performance, so we're going to dock you pay for that error.
Me: But I was docked pay by that company at that time. You're going to penalize me again for something I learned from and never did again?
My boss: Doesn't matter. We just don't want you to slip up like that again, so we're docking you pay; and oh, by the way, you won't be getting that promotion this year either.
*face palm*
■Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
■Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
■Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
■Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
■Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
■Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
■Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
■Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
■Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
■David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
■Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
■Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
■Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
■Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
■Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)
■Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
■Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
■Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)
■Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
■Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)
■Duane T. Gish (biochemist)
■John Grebe (chemist)
■Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
■William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
■George F. Howe (botanist)
■James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
■Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
■John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
■Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
■Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
■Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
■Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
■Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
■Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
■James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
■Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
■Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
■Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
■Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
■Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
■Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
■William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
■John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
■Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
■Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
■James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
■Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
■George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
■Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
■William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
■Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)
■Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
■Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
■A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)
■A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)
■John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
~ http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html
After the discredited whiners of Expelled, I take all such accounts with a big grain of salt.
BTW, my college astronomy teacher was admittedly highly religious, and I never saw the religion get in the way of the science. His view was that science was a way to delve into the mechanics of God’s creation. But then he wasn’t a literal creationist either. He thought that God setting up all these intricate, interrelated laws of physics to make things happen as they did was even more incredible than simply creating something.
Can’t some of these folks be fired cuz they suck at the job or perhaps not working to the potential that they had in 2008? I mean victimization works both ways.
Having once been a faculty member of UK, I’m not surprised. It was a terrible place to work. I had the good fortune of being the victim of diversity.
PFL
No. No one gets punished for believing or not believing any certain way.
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.
Bookmark
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.
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.
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.
Astronomy and cosmology are unique in entertaining theories which are arguably AS stupid as evolution and that arises from the continued insistence that gravity alone governs the nature of cosmic objects and interpreting redshift as distance and motion.