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.
Gonzalez has published more peer-reviewed journal articles than all but one of the faculty members granted tenure this year at ISU – across the university as a whole, not just his department.
In fact, Gonzalez has more peer-reviewed journal articles to his credit than all but five faculty members granted tenure at ISU since 2003.
In addition, he exceeded his department’s own tenure standards, which define “excellence” in terms of publications in refereed science journals, by more than 350%.
Yet ISU president Dr. Gregory Geoffroy has attributed his rejection of Gonzalez’s tenure appeal to matters having nothing to do with intelligent design. The astronomer simply “did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect,” Geoffroy has said ( yeah right ).
His department chairman, Dr. Eli Rosenberg, claims in Gonzalez’s tenure dossier that the astronomer failed to show an “overall positive trend” in his research record of late.
Yet in 2006, the year he was up for tenure, Gonzalez published more total articles than all other tenured ISU astronomers.
Moreover, Dr. Gonzalez has more per-capita citations in science journals and per-capita scientific publications than any other tenured astronomer at ISU since 2001, the year he joined ISU.
In other words, Gonzalez OUTPERFORMED the very astronomers that voted against his tenure, negating any basis for their complaining about the “trend” of his research while at ISU.
Meanwhile, his work has been featured in the world’s most prestigious science journals, Nature in 2002 and Science in 2004. He co-authored the cover story for Scientific American in 2001, and he is also co-author of a 2006 peer-reviewed Cambridge University Press textbook, Observational Astronomy.
He was clearly impacting the next generation of scientists, as his ideas about the Galactic Habitable Zone have even been incorporated into two astronomy textbooks by other authors.
With all this going for him, and being well-liked personally by his colleagues, STUDENTS, getting tenure at ISU should have been nearly automatic.
The university has struggled to explain the reason for his rejection, offering explanations that fall far short of being convincing. The claim is advanced, for example, that Gonzalez failed to secure enough funding for his research.
But observational astronomers are not heavily dependent on sumptuous grants to support their research. They only need an already existing telescope, enough money to fly or drive to the facility, and an inexpensive computer to analyze the observational data they obtain.
In any event, Gonzalez received more grant funding than 35 percent of faculty members who were granted tenure at ISU in 2007 and who listed their research grants on their curriculum vitae.
The utmost importance is the fact that grants are not even listed in the tenure guidelines for his department. Of the nine review letters that gave recommendations regarding Dr. Gonzalez’s final tenure decision, six strongly supported his tenure promotion and gave glowing endorsements of his reputation and academic achievements. (Even Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure dossier admitted that “five of the external letter writers … including senior scientists at prestigious institutions recommend his promotion” and that only “[t]hree do not.”)
One reviewer observed that ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy does not consider grants as a criterion for gaining tenure, and stated that “Dr. Gonzalez is eminently qualified for the promotion according to your guidelines of excellence in scholarship and exhibiting a potential for national distinction.
MY CONCLUSION : His denial of tenure is NOT RELATED to his performance as a faculty member. You have already mentioned the reason -— HIS SYMPATHY TOWARDS INTELLIGENT DESIGN as PROVEN BY HIS WORK -— THE PRIVILEGED PLANET.
The Judeo-Christian Holy Scriptures devote some fifty chapters to dealing with the subject (see Genesis . . . and there are references elsewhere in scripture). That seems scarcely “simplistic” or “primitive.” Nor does it seem reasonable for anything Jewish to be labeled primitive. The Hebrew culture is too subtle and advanced to be characterized in that fashion (Not to mention the Christian culture of Western Europe, or the culture of Eastern Christian tradition).
I’ve heard of primitive “creation” myths relating such scenes as a giant turtle swimming in a great ocean and carrying the earth on its back, or perhaps a description of the creation of Man by Thor (or some such god) hurling a thunderbolt. None of these creation “myths” seem to actually start “in the beginning.” They all appear to assume some prior existence coming as preparatory to the relation of the creation “myth.” Perhaps there are other myths with which I am not familiar, that more closely adhere to the “In the Beginning” genre, but I’ve not encountered them on this forum. Admittedly, I’ve not sought out creation “myths,” having nothing but a coincidental interest in the subject.
Some of my scientific friends have acknowledged that the Biblical narrative of creation closely parallels, in general terms, what Science thinks to be its actual events. Others are so alarmed by that prospect that they have descended into attempting to discredit Scripture by treating it as though it is a physics textbook.
Perhaps your college astronomy teacher never elaborated on his hypothesis, since he seemed to regard all religious creation myths as simplistic, primitive events, but if that is not the case, did he ever speculate on the question if something can be the cause of itself? Or, did he speculate on the origin of ethics, perhaps the ethics of Science, and, if he did, whence came the values upon which its ethics are based?
Or, did he perhaps ever offer an explanation for the Biblical idiom “firmament” and the division of the waters above and the waters below? Which brings to mind the question of the origin of water itself and a description of its creation.
But, enough. I’ve more than exhausted both my theological and my scientific understanding.
This year? He left in 2008. Looks like you made a mistake in your cut-and-paste from a supporter site.
In addition, he exceeded his department’s own tenure standards, which define “excellence” in terms of publications in refereed science journals, by more than 350%.
You're giving me the spin. I gave you the numbers. Most of those publications were from before his time at ISU. I keep seeing this 350% figure from supporters, but I don't see any numbers behind it. Got any? I'm betting that like the disinformation of the rate of achieving tenure, it's for the university overall, not his department.
His department chairman, Dr. Eli Rosenberg, claims in Gonzalez’s tenure dossier that the astronomer failed to show an “overall positive trend” in his research record of late.
That is 100% correct, although sugar-coated. It was clearly an overall very negative trend.
Yet in 2006, the year he was up for tenure, Gonzalez published more total articles than all other tenured ISU astronomers.
He isn't competing with tenured professors who often get lazy, he's competing with associate professors looking for tenure. But it sounds good, until you realize that means he published only two articles. Also note that 2006 was his most productive year as a first author since his sharp decline in output. Even then it is 1/5 of his highest output with less than 1/2 of the first authorship. That shows a very poor trend.
I have given you hard numbers. You have given me spin and how much of a great guy he is. Here is his publication record for original research starting from just prior to him going to ISU, total/first/other authorship:
Numbers don't lie, spin does. They are looking for a trend of excellence in original research in order to predict future academic output before granting a permanent position. 10-6-6-4-2-2-3-2-1, a steep drop in production. First authorship is very important, and that goes 5-3-2-0-0-1-2-0, another disturbing trend downards. He completely bottomed out on that for YEARS.
But observational astronomers are not heavily dependent on sumptuous grants to support their research.
For one seeking tenure in that department at ISU, the average in grant awards over their first six years was $1.3 million, and he was far below that. Gonzalez was counseled multiple times for his failure to bring in sufficient grant money. He failed this tenure criteria. No amount of spin can counter the numbers.
Gonzalez received more grant funding than 35 percent of faculty members who were granted tenure at ISU in 2007
There you go again, expanding and collapsing the scope as needed. That is all faculty members overall, not his department, the only one that matters. An acceptable grant rate for an English professor seeking tenure is far lower than that for an astronomer, who needs obscenely expensive equipment to do his job and thus needs to show an ability to bring in the cash to pay for it.
They only need an already existing telescope, enough money to fly or drive to the facility, and an inexpensive computer to analyze the observational data they obtain.
There are three ways to get telescope time. 1) pay for it. 2) have your university build or buy it. 3) write a proposal and be granted highly competitive free time (like how it works on the Hubble). The first two take money, i.e., grants. BTW, in case you haven't noticed, he was cited for failure to secure much telescope time too.
And what's this about inexpensive computers? Very expensive supercomputers are common in the field of astrophysics, the bigger the better, thousands of cores better than hundreds.
His denial of tenure is NOT RELATED to his performance as a faculty member.
I don't see how you can say that with a straight face given the proven poor performance that would result in anyone being denied tenure. The numbers don't lie, spin does. He failed.
Actually, I can see. Al Sharpton and his ilk have a complete inability to perceive a use of the race card by someone who screwed up and is trying to get out of it. They have so much bias, so much invested in their victimhood, that they can't see past the card. They automatically believe anyone who uses it, and no logic, reason or hard evidence can get through that.
I'm seeing the same here. If you want a good test case, you need to find one with solid credentials, not one with a PROVEN downard trend in academic output, a PROVEN failure to mentor his doctoral candidates to completion, and a PROVEN failure to secure grants at even close to the level of his colleagues who are also seeking tenure.
A lot start with the deity(s) breathing or dreaming up the creation from scratch, animals created, man gets dominion over them, etc. There's really nothing original about the Christian one, except maybe the introduction of the concept of original sin.
Others are so alarmed by that prospect that they have descended into attempting to discredit Scripture by treating it as though it is a physics textbook.
No alarm necessary. If you claim it is the absolute literal truth, then expect it to be analyzed as such. If you see it non-literally or metaphorically, then there can be no conflict.
did he ever speculate on the question if something can be the cause of itself?
You mean like God? He always seems to get that special exemption to the logic.
But for what you're asking, he believed God caused the creation of the universe as science has later discovered it to be. Think "God created the heavens and the earth" = "big bang plus several billion years." He, like many other Christians, just didn't believe in the literal reading of Genesis.
Your evidence is still a couple years behind. It was created in 1998 and leaked in early 1999. 2000 would thus be the perfect time to start writing a damage control book and stating there was no hidden agenda. If you are associated with the DI or know those who are or are sympathetic you may have seen something like this through the community. But it was not meant for the eyes of the heathen.
The court was deciding between the opinions of one group of scientists as opposed to others. As to the board, no doubt that some of them did not “get” what was at issue. The court seems to have ruled against the board in part because religious rhetoric terms were used. But if board members were confused, it is because the law is confused.
The court was deciding the scope of the definition of science as exists in the modern world. Even Michael Behe, the ID scientist testifying, had to admit that under their definition of science required to include ID, it would also have to include astrology.
As to the board, no doubt that some of them did not “get” what was at issue.
They absolutely didn't get the message. The religious motivation is never supposed to be stated so that this can be taught as an ostensibly non-religious theory. Everybody knows it's religious, but as long as you don't actually say it is, then it has a chance of getting through the courts. But they blew it and admitted the religious motivation. That's when the DI pulled out.
Who was convicted of perjury?
I was aware of this strategy as early as MID 1990’s. Why ? Why because it was proclaimed OPENLY.
In fact, Wedge Movement was openly presented in the early 1990’s.
The movement we now call the wedge made its public debut at a conference of scientists and philosophers held at Southern Methodist University in March 1992, following the publication of Philip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial.
What became the book entitled the WEDGE OF TRUTH was NOT damage control. It was simply the fruits of a movement that was already WELL KNOWN many years before.
You ought to get your facts straight.
Gonzalez’s department appointed outside reviewers to evaluate Dr. Gonzalez as a candidate.
Of those who gave clear recommendations, two-thirds strongly supported his tenure promotion. As one of his external reviewers (whose advice ISU ignored) stated, “Dr. Gonzalez is eminently qualified for the promotion according to your guidelines of excellence in scholarship and exhibiting a potential for national distinction.”
In other words, Dr. Gonzalez’s colleagues simply ignored the recommendations of the decisive majority of the outside reviewers they themselves had appointed!
AGAIN, ISU claims that it declined to offer Gonzalez tenure because of a disappointing record of publications and obtaining grants. Is there any truth in these claims?
Nope.
If you look through the record of emails among his colleagues, you won’t find them grousing about how Guillermo doesn’t publish enough or doesn’t get enough grants. On the contrary, key measures of productivity show that Gonzalez was MOR EPRODUCTIVE as a scholar during probationary period at ISU than any of the tenured faculty who voted against his tenure.
No other tenured ISU astronomer besides Gonzalez co-authored a textbook with Cambridge University Press during that time. Moreover, his department’s tenure requirements do not even list grants as one of the criteria evaluated for tenure applicants.
Instead, the official tenure standards emphasized the candidate’s publication record. On that score, Gonzalez published over 350 percent more peer-reviewed scientific articles than the number required by his department to “ordinarily” demonstrate excellence in research.
Even regarding his outside work, THE PRIVILEGED PLANET, ISU had previously approved and administered a grant to Gonzalez, to help write this very book from the entirely mainstream and prestigious Templeton Foundation.
The book has the endorsements of top scientists like Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, Owen Gingerich of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell. Again. This is legitimate work that has earned protection under the rubric of academic freedom.
Also Gonzalez’s ideas about intelligent design were NOT, in any event, part of his teaching of students. He did not teach it in class, did not force anyone ( students or colleages ) to believe what he personally believes, nor did he coerce anyone towards his own point of view IN HIS CAPACITY AS COLLEGE PROFESSOR.
Still, Dr. Gonzalez’s department chair claimed that Dr. Gonzalez’s views on ID “disqualified” him from being a “science educator.” Moreover, Dr. Gonzalez’s writings clearly indicate that he understands that science should produce predictive, testable theories.
The ISU department chair’s litmus test is pure viewpoint discrimination.
That is our disagreement. A court cannot define science any more than a court can define capitalism. Both refer to a process, and there is always a danger of identifying it with scientism.which I think the court did. Popular evolutionism is more a body of philosophical opinion than “science” per se. It is grounded in 19th century materialism and makes constant assertions that are unproved, such as on the origin of life. And from the start it has leapt far beyond biology, where it has a narrow application, to an overarching theory of everything. Certainly it is the cheap weapon of modern atheism—the grand theory, anyway. So we get the constant barrage about life on other planets, the whole Startrek fantasy of a universe teeming with quasi-terran life forms. Yet we cannot be sure that the “laws” of science do apply beyond the range of our vision.
All of modern science is grounded in materialism. More correctly, methodological naturalism. This idea goes back to before Socrates, but its modern use began with 17th Century Francis Bacon who, BTW, was religious. We call things outside this method pseudoscience, such as astrology and clairvoyance. The purpose was not to overturn religion, since most of the people who used it were religious, even Darwin was highly religious when he set off on his Beagle voyage. He had studied to be Anglican clergy and went on the voyage looking for evidence of creation. The evidence is what changed his mind.
Remember, Behe admitted the definition of science would have to be changed to include the likes of astrology in order to include ID. The helped the judge recognize that ID is outside the bounds of modern science, and thus can't be taught as science. From the other end the board admitted they had a religious motivation, bring in the problem with religious indoctrination in public schools.
OTOH, I do not mind ID or even creation (pick your version) being taught in non-science classes. I don't even mind the Bible being taught in a non-indoctrinating way, since it is an extremely relevant piece of literature to our culture. My objection is to ID being passed off as science.
Nobody, since it requires a prosecutor to go after them. 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.
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.
Actually astrology was widely regarded as science up to the 17th Century, Kepler was a court astrologer. The Church condemned it because the determinism that was part and parcel of it. What astrology does provide is a detailed description of the heavens. As a science it is a failed paradign, in part because once we moved beyond a terra-centric universe, the notion that we are influenced by the motions of the heavens fell by the wayside. It did not fit the new model of planetary and steller motions. I look at psychology as something similar, a quasi-science that is useful when limited to descriptions and personal counseling.
It depends on his field does it not? Should Princeton have refused to hire Einstein because of his naive political and social views?
Instead, the official tenure standards emphasized the candidate’s publication record.
Which, as I have proven, showed a steep downward trend. Would you promote anyone with a steep downard trend in his work? Even it it were high (only two publications is high?), it's still a downward trend with years of no first authorship.
On that score, Gonzalez published over 350 percent more peer-reviewed scientific articles than the number required by his department to “ordinarily” demonstrate excellence in research.
What was the requirement? 350% more (100% + 350% = 4.5 times) to result in a whole number means a minimum of two for the requirement and nine for his publishing rate. During what period does this requirement apply? Can't be one year. He didn't have nine publications in any year at ISU since his rate had dropped from a high of ten before ISU. For the whole six years? He met that, but a requirement of two publications in six years sounds absurdly low to demonstrate "excellence." He had just over 18 through 2006 so we can say rounding of the numbers and four was the requirement, but four publications in six years also does not exactly show excellence. I call BS.
You give me spin, I give you numbers. I expect numbers back.
The book has the endorsements of top scientists
It also had some seriously harsh criticisms from a scientific point of view. Note that those endorsements were generally not from a scientific standpoint, usually more a philosophical and metaphysical one.
Also Gonzalez’s ideas about intelligent design were NOT, in any event, part of his teaching of students.
Which is why it wasn't a factor.
I know there are those out there who would like to railroad someone for believing in ID even when it does not affect their work. But the fact is that there has not been ONE case to show that was the cause for adverse action. EVERY case has shown the complaintant to be a whiner pulling the religion card. Remember that Sternberg at the Smithsonian who complained he was forced to move offices? Yeah, he forgot to mention that he was one person in a larger shuffle, and was even given a different replacement office he requested instead of the one that had been assigned to him. Horrors! Poor treatment! Remember him being ordered to turn in his keys? That sounds bad! Oops, he forgot to mention that as part of a security overhaul all research associates had to turn in their keys -- to be replaced with access badges (keys don't work well in badge reader doors). Through it all he wants you to forget he was an unpaid guest researcher, not even an employee, and was never actually subject to any adverse administrative action.
Lying whiners. I have no tolerance for card pullers.
But do note that I don't discount the possibility that it could happen in the future. It could even be happening with this thread's case. I just take such claims with a grain of salt given all the past religion card pullers like Gonzalez and Sternberg.
Exactly, was. I hear alchemy was popular for a time too.
look at psychology as something similar, a quasi-science that is useful when limited to descriptions and personal counseling.
Many aspects of research psychology do use empirical scientific methods. In other cases they use surveys and other methods that make it more of a "soft science," mainly because people are so different and unpredictable. In any case it can return valuable information. Medicine's kind of like that in general, some science, some art.
Bookmark
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.