The Case of the Christian Astronomer

Gawker ^ | 1/19/11 | Gawker

[careyb]

Martin Gaskell is an astronomer who studies quasars. He's also a Christian who questions evolution. The University of Kentucky decided not to hire him at least partly because of his religious views. Now Gaskell's won a settlement over it. Good.

[dartuser]

He's also a Christian who questions evolution.

Therefore he is not a real scientist /sarc.

[muawiyah]

It doesn't surprise me a bit that UK has a management that doesn't know the difference between biology and astronomy ~ after all, their job is to fill the slots on the basketball team.

Beyond that no one has ever noticed if they have a purpose.

[munin]

Evolution and Christianity is not mutuall exclusive,
either God uses evolution to achive his goals or he manipulate it to his own end. It don’t have to be 100% one or the other, see tag line

[Slambat]

He can hit up the Vatican or Osteen. The Vatican has an
observatory and Osteen has the dough for one.
http://www.vaticanobservatory.org/

[BigEdLB]

Perhaps since God didn’t like how the dinosaurs were going, he gave a low inside slider (baseball term) to the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico 65 million years ago? Evolution can be a mix of a slow process and the hand of God at key points.

[kitkat]

It’s good to see that multiculturism can work both ways.

[Behemothpanzer]

It's good that this guy got his settlement, but it should be pointed out he is emphatically not a Young-Earth Creationist. In his own words:

“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 “scientific” explanations offered by “creationists” are mostly very poor science and I believe this sort of thing actually hinders some (many?) scientists becoming Christians."

from the paper: Modern Astronomy, The Bible and Creation: http://incolor.inetnebr.com/gaskell/Martin_Gaskell_Bible_Astronomy.html

[JoeFromSidney]

The ironic thing is that nowhere does the Bible say the world was created 6000 years ago. That number came from adding up the assumed ages of a list of "begats." There are numerous commentators on the Bible who argue that the writer never intended that interpretation, but instead was trying to show importance of certain personages in salvation history.

I guess you pays your money and takes your choices.

[Liberty1970]

It's not that simple. Many of my friends and associates have lost jobs, been denied degrees, and faced other forms of harassment and persecution because we believe the Bible on this point. Do you really think the only basis for rejecting old-earth/evolutionary beliefs is the chronological record? Truly we are fools, if this is not a battle worth suffering for.

This is something that I hope you will struggle with a bit more seriously. Yes, the Bible does present a plain set of data that leads to a ~6000 year age for the earth. But there are other critical points that rest on acceptance of the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches death came through sin, and will be 'the last enemy' defeated as God restores His creation. But old-earth 'interpretations' of the Bible say death was around long before Adam, and even was the method (via evolution by natural selection) through which God created. This view of God as a cruel butcher does not accord with the Bible. This is just one example of how rejection of the biblical doctrine of creation makes for an incoherent and unchristian theology (despite the efforts of numerous compromising academics). Compromise is not a route to truth.

Or to put it more simply, there will be no roadkill in Heaven. We can either choose to accept the Bible and science and believe in it (for empirical science itself supports the Bible just fine), or get lost in humanistic evolutionary delusions and lies. It is sad how naive many people are regarding historical models and interpretations of data.

How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words? (John 5:44-47)

[TXnMA]

Ping to an article in our ROI...

[TXnMA]

I would hate to have my career being judged by someone as ignorant as "Mike Cavagnero" -- whoever he is.

He used the words, "their" and "there" -- and misused both of them.

Consider me extremely unimpressed with both the contents and the output of American academia... :-(

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping, dear brother in Christ!

[JoeFromSidney]

I think you've missed my point. I know people have lost their jobs, unjustly, because of their Christian beliefs. My point, though, was that we should be sure we know what the inspired writer was trying to tell us. In this case, as a scientist, I am quite confident the world is a lot more than 6000 years old. That doesn't shake my confidence in the Bible. Instead, it causes me to look deeper into what the writer intended to convey to me. As St. Augustine put it, when our interpretation of the Bible conflicts with something we have proven by other means, we need to look for the correct interpretation. To me, a more plausible interpretation is that the writer wasn't intending to give a timeline, but instead intended to emphasize the importance of certain personages by their location in that list. That may not be correct either, but it makes a lot more sense than trying to cram a lot of scientific findings into a mere 6000 years.

[BrandtMichaels]

Things that make you go hmmmm...

Man’s recorded history only goes back 5-10 thousand years. The global warming movement shows how easily lies are propagated esp. if the voice of reason is not repeated by the mainstream press.

True science considers all the gathered facts and evidence.
True science has to be constantly reviewed to remove error.

101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2264681/posts

[BrandtMichaels]

After my last post I decided to check your homepage, since I do not recall seeing you post on evo/crevo threads. Interesting ~ I’ll be sure to check out more of your homepage and your book when I have more free time.

Since you are a military man and also enjoy writing, I thought maybe you would also enjoy this link/online book 1st published 1980 (now in it’s 8th edition). Written by Dr. Walt Brown Ph.D. in engineering from MIT and a highly decorated veteran who previously worked as an evolutionary scientist.

I’ve found his book absolutely spellbinding for its depth and clarity but also for his theory (part II of III) opposing plate tectonics, yet also largely ignored and unknown by the mainstream...

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

[JoeFromSidney]

No, I haven't gotten involved in any of the evolution arguments. I don't see any chance of changing anyone's mind.

As to my own position, I'm a Catholic, and accept the inspired nature of the Bible. However, that doesn't make me a Fundamentalist. The Bible has to be interpreted, and the question always is, what is the Holy Spirit, acting through the human writer, trying to tell us? Again calling on St. Augustine, if our interpretation of the Bible conflicts with something we've proven by other means, we need another interpretation. Somehow we've missed the message. God writes in the rock strata, just as He writes through the hand of the inspired writer. Ultimately there can be no conflict between the two.

Obviously that means I'm not a Young Earth Creationist. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Intelligent Design position, but haven't yet found their arguments compelling enough to adopt it for myself. That is, I'm not sure they've added anything significant to St. Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways. In any case, should I finally adopt that position, it would mean only that I've found additional arguments in support of what I already accept.

Thanks for the references. I've already read some of the Creationist literature. Although I can't accept the Young Earth position, I find the Creationist literature useful in pointing out some of the errors of the Darwinians.

[alstewartfan]

Gaskell must be PUNISHED for his refusal to agree that Darwin wears no clothes. Bob

[alstewartfan]

Whoops! I said that backwards! lol Naturalistic “logic” must be affecting my brain. Bob

[BrandtMichaels]

JFS-”Again calling on St. Augustine, if our interpretation of the Bible conflicts with something we’ve proven by other means, we need another interpretation. Somehow we’ve missed the message. God writes in the rock strata, just as He writes through the hand of the inspired writer. Ultimately there can be no conflict between the two.”

Interesting where you say: we need another interpretation & we’ve missed the message ~ has dual meanings!!!

So this begs the question is radioactive isotope dating proven? Or just generally accepted as consensus amongst the experts? What assumptions are present in this dating method?

How about polystrate fossils ~ fossils that encompass many layers, layers that are purported to represent long time periods. How could a tree grow through the several layers and ages they are supposed to represent? See item 22 entitled Parallel Strata in part I of creationscience.com.

What exactly did Einstein infer with an inflationary universe and the passage of time as related to gravitational strengths/weaknesses?

No need to answer although I do hope you’ll read and enjoy the links ~ I regard these links as providing the most logical and comprehensive views on age-dating and evolutionary limitations.