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.
Creation is a broader concept than just originating the universe. It looks at the whole thing and sees how it exists, and more narrowly why it does not not exist.
Creation is a broader concept than just originating the universe. It looks at the whole thing and sees how it exists, and more narrowly why it does not not exist.
PFL
In a way you are correct. The problem was that he took a couple years to write The Privileged Planet, and during that time his scientific output dropped like a rock. Unfortunately for him, that was the period leading up to the tenure decision. Those deciding tenure got to see a pattern of diminishing scientific output from what appeared to be a once-promising scientist. Also hurting was his relative lack of ability to get research grants, him achieving $22,000 vs. the 1.3 million average for someone seeking tenure. He also had a lack of successful supervision of graduate students, only one completing his dissertation in seven years.
Basically, he blew all his time on ID and severely neglected his academic duties. It's no wonder he was denied tenure.
RE: Then that institution being the leader of the modern ID movement makes anybody suspect of any work in the area.
What a person does OUTSIDE of the academe should be his own business.
He should be judged BASED ON HIS WORK WITHIN THE ACADEME ITSELF.
Did he teach well ? Did he publish peer revieiwed papers ?
Is his research cited by other peers ?
*THAT* should be the criteria.
If what they did to Gonzalez were done to men like Isaac Newton, who wrote books on Biblical Prophecy and even wrote a number of religious tracks, a lot of great and interesting science would have been thrown by the wayside.
If they have valid performance issues supported by his previous poor performance reviews, he won't be getting anything.
No, their agenda is to evangelize Christianity through subversion of modern science. They admit it. Any actual science is only a small part, the rest revolves around non-scientific PR and government work. Don't forget, the Discovery Institute was part of the Kitzmiller case from the beginning, but tried to pull out once they saw they were going to lose.
The Iowa Board of Regents assumed Guillermo’s guilt in advance, and denied his defense the opportunity to present evidence in favor of his innocence. Based on my readings of his case:
1) The Board of Regents would not allow into the record extensive e-mail documentation showing that Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure not due to his academic record, but because he supports intelligent design.
2) They denied his due process rights throughout this entire appeal.
3) They refused Dr. Gonzalez the opportunity to present his case fully to the Board and to have face-to-face contact with the Board through oral arguments.
4) They refused to let him cite key NASA/Smithsonian Astrophysics Database information that shows how he outperformed many of the tenured faculty in his own department in productivity.
I believe that the arbitrariness of this decision to deny tenure will discourage people from accepting tenure-track faculty positions at the U. of Iowa (and probably also Iowa State U.).
The pretexts for denying tenure were that Gonzalez did not bring in a lot of grant money and did not advise a lot of graduate students who got degrees, but he did have a lot going for him: he was author or co-author of dozens of peer-reviewed papers, he co-authored an astronomy textbook that is used by his own department.
RE: No, their agenda is to evangelize Christianity through subversion of modern science.
Actually, I kinda like the Wedge document.
And you don’t have to be a Christian to appreciate what it plans to do. Jews, Muslims, Theists or even Buddhists can appreciate its goals.
Also, it isn’t as if the Discovery Institute is hiding its agenda or something, They’re pretty upfront about it.
My favorite part is where it says that the goal is to bring together “leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.”
I think desiring to look at how new developments raise doubt on the materialistic paradigm is a goal worth acheiving.
Nowhere does this imply concocting developments or distorting them. What’s so wrong with this goal? Am I missing something?
Those are the excuses I expect to hear in the preponderance of cases of Christians being denied tenure. Christianity won´t be specifically cited as the reason for its denial, threading through liability issues, so they come up with this other subterfuge.
Academics write books all the time. Christians though, who are clearly not wanted in academia, do so at their peril.
Most of those guys lived in an age when heresy was not only a religious crime, but also a civil offence and a social outrage. Not toeing the 'party line' would result in loss of funding.
They join the DI in a professional manner. In doing so they've also agreed to bias their scientific work should it have any conflict with the Bible. It definitely should make people suspect of their claims and work. In any case the decision about Gonzalez was made purely on the academic merits, or rather the lack thereof. I listed the reasons that would have anybody denied tenure regardless of religious beliefs.
If what they did to Gonzalez were done to men like Isaac Newton
Newton refused to play god of the gaps. Newton also removed a superstition (religion) from the science itself. He believed God designed all the mechanics, but his mechanics had to hold up absent any reference to the supernatural.
Relevancy? The Dr. in the article was not a creationist. He was an IDer.
Then why do fundamental Christians support ID?
This guy was not a Christian. He was an IDer. He refuted creationism.
What you are seeing is the religious version of the race card. People are being denied things purely on their merits, but because they are religious they think they can claim persecution, and others of their persuasion will automatically believe them and support them.
Academics write books all the time.
And if they're smart, they won't let it affect their academic work as severely as Gonzalez did. Look at the facts! Before granting permanent employement a university wants serious assurance that a candidate will continue to publish at a high rate, pull in major grant money and have a lot of successful doctoral students. Once Gonzalez got there:
You will hear his proponents tell you that 90% get tenure at that university. That's a lie on two levels. One, that's only of applicants, and most people don't apply unless they have a good chance of getting tenure. Second, the tenure rate of applicants in his department (the one that matters) is only 66%. So, in a highly competitive environment, with a sub-standard record at that university, he didn't make the two-thirds cut. Boo-hoo.
I have zero sympathy for people who play the race card, the religion card, or any other such card.
*The Dr. in the article was not a creationist. He was an IDer.*
Close enough.
Close enough.
hmmm. A guy that condemns creation believes in evolution is 'close enough?
heh heh ... Sorry. I missed your sarcasm. :)
Did you miss the PR campaign part of it? It's not about science, it's about a religious movement. Note "teach the controversy." There was no scientific controversy over natural selection in general before, but through PR they created the perception of one, then tell people it should be taught.
Also, it isn’t as if the Discovery Institute is hiding its agenda or something, They’re pretty upfront about it.
Now they are, with the appropriate spin of course now that they've been caught. The Wedge Document was originally supposed to be "top secret" and not for distribution outside the Institute.
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.