|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 17, 2011 0:02:58 GMT
This post is a comment on James post on the Quodlibeta blog, his article in the Guardian and Martin Gaskell's explanatory blog. Martin Gaskell is an astronomer. The matter under discussion is a court case, settled amicably in Martin's favour, when he was not appointed to a position he applied for and was well qualified for, on the grounds that he was a christian who allegedly questioned the truth of the theory of evolution. I urge anyone wishing to comment to read all three articles referenced above and some of the comments following them. I have several concerns about the response of some scientists and some atheists about the whole matter. 1. Many of the critics of Gaskell (following James' article) seem not to have read Gaskell's views, but to have demonised him by association with certain words - creationist (he says he is not), major critic of evolution (he says he is not, but accepts its main tenets), dangerously deluded because he believes in theistic evolution. 2. I have heard it said that in academia there is discrimination against non-believers in the US, but against believers in the UK. This case might suggest that there is at least significant discrimination against believers in the US - the University was in Kentucky, which one would have thought was more likely than most to be sympathetic to christianity. 3. There is a growing push to identify any religious belief as anti intellectual and therefore enough to disqualify anyone from any academic position. Even though Gaskell is an astronomer, his views on the metaphysical implications of the science of evolution are enough to disqualify him in some eyes from teaching, perhaps even doing, astronomy. His critics don't seem to realise that they are doing the same thing as they criticise and disqualify him for - drawing unscientific conclusions from science. Take this example (admittedly just from an anonymous comment): "What exactly is 'unwarranted' about NOT instantly assuming that 'god' (for which there is absolutely ZERO evidence) did everything? Sounds like a creationist talking to me." If the commenter can draw an anti-theistic conclusion from the evidence, why cannot Martin draw a theistic one? 4. I am not one to be alarmist about these things, but I wonder whether we believers need to get better prepared to argue the case against such arguments? I can only think the arguments will get more pressing. |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Feb 17, 2011 1:37:08 GMT
I've weighed in on the Guardian site in defence of Gaskell, since he declares himself a theistic evolutionist. Now I've dug a little deeper, however, I'm beginning to think he's not being entirely honest. Here is his essay Modern Astronomy, the Bible and Creation in its current form. Except if we look at its earlier version we find some parts that have since been carefully excised. For example: "Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy" (now in its 4th or 5th edition; the 3rd edition, in 1989 was $6) - a 48 page illustrated booklet put out by the Committee for Integrity in Science Education of the American Scientific Affiliation (P.O. Box 668, Ipswich, MA 01938-9980). This is designed for school teachers. An excellent discussion of the science issues and the limits of what is known. References to many more books and articles on the issue of creation and evolution at the back of the booklet. Highly recommended if you are in or are going into any kind of school teaching.
"Of Pandas and People", Dean H. Kenyon and Percival Davis (published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics). This well-illustrated book is written at the high-school biology level and is intended, among other things, to be used as a supplement in high school biology classes to show the limitations of evolutionary theory. It is a very even-handed book. It is from a completely non-religious perspective (there are no references to the Bible and I don't think the word "God" is used anywhere in the book).
"Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds", Phillip E. Johnson (1997; InterVarsity Press). The earlier books by Johnson cited above go into considerable scientific and intellectual detail. Some people have found them heavy going. "Defeating Darwinism" is a much more straighforward book. It covers some of the same ground as "Darwin on Trial" but is aimed at high-school juniors and seniors and beginning college undergraduates, along with their teachers and parents. Johnson believes that the key to defeating the exaggerated claims of Darwinism is to open people's minds to good thinking habits. I particularly recommend the chapter "Turning up Your Baloney Detector." ($10)The longer version of the section "The Origin of Life and Evolution" in the older version also contains recommendations of books by or used by IDers and Creationists. This is very difficult to reconcile with his current image of himself as a simple believer in Theistic Evolution. It seems he tried to change the past to help his legal case. Not very honest for a supposed Christian ... |
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 17, 2011 3:03:16 GMT
I wouldn't employ him as a janitor, at a university position in science you have to at least respect your fellow scientists and be familiar with the scientific method that is used by all disciplines. I have been following this story for quite so time. I already knew he had changed his site but thanks Tim for pointing it out. It has more credibility coming from him on this site than it would ever have from me. He actually endorses Hugh Ross, nobody in biology knows maths as if no biologist had ever considered the possibility of using maths to quantify selection, drift, or mutation rates. As if Wright, Haldane, and Fisher had never existed, not only is this guy a complete fraud, anyone who supports his views then post them here and I will gladly blow them out of the water. If this law suit had happened anywhere else in the Western world then U of K would not even have to have settled. Though the flyover states are full of creatards so they probably did the wise thing. How was this guy educated in the United Kingdom though, our education standards must be slipping.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 17, 2011 8:29:15 GMT
Now I've dug a little deeper, however, I'm beginning to think he's not being entirely honest. Tim and others, if I've misunderstood the truth of this matter I apologise, but I'm not yet sure if that's the case. Here are a few further thoughts: 1. Even if Martin Gaskell is not the best example, I still think there is a significant issue here. Is a person who believes in God or who questions scientific orthodoxy thereby unfit for academic scientific positions, as some non-theists are saying? I think this would be very dangerous ground: - Who decides what questions determine who is unfit? If a scientist spends a lot of money on lotteries, which I regard as mathematically futile and therefore illogical, would I be justified in opposing his/her appointment as a biological researcher??
- Many scientific discoveries come from mavericks opposing orthodoxy. Unorthodoxy within limits determined by peer review should be encouraged.
- If a non-believeing scientist can make metaphysical statements based on scientific evidence (as scientists like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers do), then why should a theistic scientist be condemned for doing the same thing, just drawing different conclusions from the same evidence?
2. People change their minds. The "earlier version" of his paper was written in 1994 and revised in 1997, quite a long time ago. My views on evolution have changed a great deal in that period. One would hope all intelligent people, especially scientists, are developing their views all the time. I think we have to take his latest statement as his current views unless we have reason to think otherwise. 3. So, is there any reason to think the statement I quoted is untruthful or he changed his views just to win this court case? I think saying that he did would be close to libellous, so one would want to be careful. But I don't know of anything that demonstrates his dishonesty. Does anyone else? I am open to being convinced. 4. I think the issue may be the words 'intelligent design', which seem to me to have different meanings to different people. - The Intelligent Design movement seems (in my very limited reading) to accept the main tenets of evolution (old age of the earth, common ancestry, gradual development or change in species, natural selection) but say that it couldn't happen by natural processes - only God's interference could do it.
- Critics of the ID movement equate it with creationism, with the inference (I think) that this is YEC (young earth creationism).
- Theistic evolutionists believe the universe was designed by an intelligent being (obviously) but don't necessarily think God intervened through the process.
Now Gaskell does seem to believe in one of these forms of intelligent design, but which one? His opponents will, and have, equated him with creationism, or perhaps the ID movement, but his latest writings suggest he is in the theistic evolution camp. It might be that he was in the ID movement 15 years ago, but is now more of a theistic evolutionist. If this is a correct analysis, then I think he would be vindicated as truthful and honest. He always believed God originated the process, but he may have changed his views on God's involvement along the way. What do others think? |
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Feb 17, 2011 9:08:16 GMT
Some of the great scientists have had some distinctly odd ideas: Isaac Newton had some very nonconformist religious views, while Frances Crick of DNA fame reportedly proposed that life had been brought to Earth in spaceships. Nicolai Tesla insisted on doing things in threes and the sight of some jewellery would make him physically sick. Would they be disqualified today?
If we insist on strict orthodoxy in academic study, we eliminate people who are willing to take intellectual risks or consider 'heretical' ideas. Science advances by thinking outside the box, not demanding that everyone stays within it. Everyone seems to agree that Gaskell is an excellent scientist in his own field, so why is Darwinism an issue?
|
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Feb 17, 2011 9:13:36 GMT
Now I've dug a little deeper, however, I'm beginning to think he's not being entirely honest. Tim and others, if I've misunderstood the truth of this matter I apologise, but I'm not yet sure if that's the case. Here are a few further thoughts: 1. Even if Martin Gaskell is not the best example, I still think there is a significant issue here. Is a person who believes in God or who questions scientific orthodoxy thereby unfit for academic scientific positions, as some non-theists are saying? I think this would be very dangerous ground: - Who decides what questions determine who is unfit? If a scientist spends a lot of money on lotteries, which I regard as mathematically futile and therefore illogical, would I be justified in opposing his/her appointment as a biological researcher??
- Many scientific discoveries come from mavericks opposing orthodoxy. Unorthodoxy within limits determined by peer review should be encouraged.
- If a non-believeing scientist can make metaphysical statements based on scientific evidence (as scientists like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers do), then why should a theistic scientist be condemned for doing the same thing, just drawing different conclusions from the same evidence?
Try this - replace Gaskell and his seemingly semi-Creationist beliefs with a dubious and fringe belief with which you have less sympathy and see if these questions give you comfort about someone who holds them being appointed to a University position that involves public education on science. Like, say, dianetics. Or ancient astronauts building the pyramids. Or astrology. Still think that it's somehow unreasonable that scientific peers would have sufficient reservations about them, or does this "who has the right to decide" stuff only work when it's one of yours involved? Nice try, but that would cut a bit more ice if Gaskell has, at any stage, come out and said "yes, I can see from some of my past public statements endorsing blatantly Creationist material that people would think I have sympathy for Creationism. But, you see, I've changed my mind since then. I used to think things like the stuff you find in Of Pandas and People were valid criticisms of evolutionary biology, but now I see it's all a load of crap." Find me a statement like that and I'll let this guy off the hook. Quietly changing his essay and then keeping as quiet as possible about it stinks of deliberate deception. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 17, 2011 10:18:37 GMT
Try this - replace Gaskell and his seemingly semi-Creationist beliefs with a dubious and fringe belief with which you have less sympathy and see if these questions give you comfort about someone who holds them being appointed to a University position that involves public education on science. Like, say, dianetics. Or ancient astronauts building the pyramids. Or astrology. Still think that it's somehow unreasonable that scientific peers would have sufficient reservations about them, or does this "who has the right to decide" stuff only work when it's one of yours involved? I think you are showing partisanship by saying "one of yours". I've said I will apologise and change my mind if I'm wrong, so perhaps you might offer evidence to help me? And I honestly don't think I'd care about weird beliefs provided they weren't relevant to the subject at hand - hence my example about lotteries. And I think you have not taken account of my comments on the different definitions of ID. So far the best hypothesis seems to me that's he's moved from ID (which recognises much of evolutionary science but not all) to theistic evolution (which recognises all the science of evolution but not the metaphysical conclusions of some scientists). I'm still open to being wrong on that, but I've searched and not found anything contrary to that as yet. Have you? Are you saying he's damned in your eyes unless I can find something to absolve him? Guilty until proven innocent??? Don't you need evidence before you damn him? Shouldn't you keep an open mind? I am willing to. And what's your basis for "as quiet as possible"? How do you know how quiet he has been? And I wonder why a quiet change would be damning anyway? Guilty unless he meets your criteria??? I have compared the old version of his paper and the newer version and I don't see much change in view, only in some details and references. Can you see any major difference to support the charge that he has slyly changed without anyone noticing? Again I repeat, I would like to keep this factual and not partisan, at least until we've determined the facts. Are you willing to do that? Have you any evidence to offer? I am happy to see it. |
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Feb 17, 2011 10:21:54 GMT
Hi Tim and others, Have a look at this review: bede.org.uk/books,science.htm#Behe I wrote in many years ago (although after 1997) but I suspect it would be used as evidence against me if ever I tried (truthfully) to claim I am a Darwinist and have been for ages. But more importantly, even if Gaskell was a creationist, it wouldn't change a thing. It would still be religious discrimination and still wrong. And yes Tim, you can insert any hare-brained belief you like into there. As long as it was not explicitly calling for harm to others, I'd have to say "you may be a fruitcake, but if you are the best man for the job, it's yours." This affair, as well as the reactions on the Guardian thread and our own Dave above, reveals a disturbing authoritarianism to some strains of modern atheism. No longer can they claim that they are just writing forthrightly. In this case, it seems that they would happily deprive a man of his livelihood if he disagrees with certain dogmas. If that's not a worry, it should be. Best wishes James |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Feb 17, 2011 11:40:05 GMT
I suspect Gaskell might have changed his position to align with the moderates and we can't really take evidence from over a decade ago as proof he is in the Discovery Institutes's camp. As an example, Jeff Schloss at Westmont has done quite a bit of work on Alturism and the evolution of moral systems - and yet he used to be a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute and an ID supporter (only leaving in 2003). He was included on the list of dissenters from Darwin.
I think also we are forgetting the example of the legendary Fred Hoyle whose arguments against chemical evolution are often cited by creationists - yet the idea of turning him down for an astronomy position would have been absolutely ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 17, 2011 11:47:03 GMT
In the spirit of trying to get factual information before coming to a conclusion, I have spent a little time searching the web. I didn't find much that added to what we already have been told, but here are a few items: - a December 2010 article by the National Association of Scholars (which apparently sees itself as a critic of the academic establishment), which is supportive of Gaskell and ends: "Have the structures of university science become so narrow that an astronomer cannot even speculate on theistic creation without jeopardizing his career?";
- a December 2010 article in Science published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science - note the comment by AAAS member and a colleague of 20 years: 'she doesn’t consider Gaskell a creationist. “He doesn’t discount or disbelieve evolution”;
- a January 2011 article by Daily Tech that accepts him as a theistic evolutionist;
- comment in Skeptical Science which supports the university - but note that two of the main two objections were Gaskell's statements about "significant scientific problems" which he has explained (whether satisfactorily or not is open to interpretation) and "unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations" which refers not to the science but the metaphysics which often accompanies it;
- comment from an ID viewpoint that I am only referring to because it documents an alleged change in view, not by Gaskell, but one of his critics, who said back in 2007 that Gaskell was "accepting of evolution" but at the time of the court case (2010/11) called him "an ID creationist";
- a brief comment by employment lawyers who seem to specialise in discrimination cases, which seems mildly supportive of Gaskell.
So that is what I have found. I think there are a number of apparently independent sources supporting the more charitable view about Gaskell's views, and only one saying otherwise (and that based, I think, on a misunderstanding). |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Feb 17, 2011 11:55:53 GMT
The fact is that U.S employment law does not allow religious discrimination and in this case the University has left a trail of email evidence showing just that. They absolutely deserved to be taken to the cleaners.
|
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Feb 17, 2011 17:40:48 GMT
This is absurd, the man was qualified, he should have got the job. So what if he questions evolution, is evolution so sacrosanct that one cannot be skeptical of it now days. What in blazes does that have to do with him engaging in astronomy.
I have said it once and I will say it again, I consider neo atheist to be an ideological hate group. They have no problem hounding a man for simply questioning something for them that has become literally a sacred position.
If Neo atheists ever gain control of a country it will make the French Revolution look tame in comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainzman on Feb 17, 2011 17:50:04 GMT
If Neo atheists ever gain control of a country it will make the French Revolution look tame in conparison. I don't like "Neo-Atheists" either, but saying something like this is pretty extreme, and I don't think it's a very charitable thing to say. |
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Feb 17, 2011 18:09:14 GMT
But history sadly shows this pattern. Atheists gain control of a country, then genocide happens. There has never been an exception to this pattern.
Neo atheists are Utopians, they believe by getting rid of religion they will get some sort of atheists paradise that has no war, no hunger etc. They also feel they are at least a cut above religious people intellectually and morally.
So we got people who want paradise, see how to get paradise and the one thing that prevents them from getting paradise is people they consider to be subhuman. We have all seen Neo atheists at times joke about killing religious believers, but as the saying goes there is truth in humor.
There position is always a dangerous position in history.
|
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Feb 17, 2011 18:16:15 GMT
If anyone thinks evolution is just another scientific theory after reading this they are simply kidding themselves. It is obvious that many, many people have a vested emotional attachment to evolution which puts it beyond rational criticism. If someone was to falsify evolution he would be treated in such a manner as to make what happened to Gaskell look tame in comparison. Or perhaps evolution has already been falsified but they burnt the falsification.
The same people who would deny a man a job he is fully qualified for because of his views on a unrelated matter are hardly the people who can rationally critique their own views.
|
|
