|
Post by ignorantianescia on Feb 17, 2011 20:40:21 GMT
For an astronomer, it is hardly relevant to accept evolution for one's expertise in astronomy, one would think that accepting astronomy and excelling at it should be sufficient. It is not surprising that many observations in astronomy supporting a 13.7 milliard years old universe agree with the old age of the Earth that evolution would require to fit in with observations of how long it overall takes for individuals to reproduce, but both an old universe with a created wildlife and a young universe with evolved life are conceivable as hypotheses. Bringing his alleged support for ID up as a reason to discriminate is a red herring at best and a straw man at worst. It is incomprehensible that Dawkins seems to think that creationist beliefs would limit his abilities as an astronomer and comes up with examples that are instead more directly related to the field of one's expertise and some petty appeals to emotion.
Secondly as Mr Clarke has already discussed, people change their views over time. Another great example would be the celebrated biophysicist Cees Dekker, who used to be involved with ID a few years ago but now openly advocates theistic evolution. In case anybody wonders, he didn't lose his position as a univerity teacher because of it. So if it is acceptable for a biophysicist to have been a proponent of ID in the past (and I cannot see any reasons why it should be unacceptable), it is wholly beyond me why one could fire an astronomer over it.
Now there isn't much of a reason to suppose that if Dr Gaskell were to believe there is truth value to the claim that psychologists are out there to get us or some other belief not germane with Christianity that we would be all right about this. As Dr Hannam has pointed out, this is a very illiberal turn of events and it is the kind of social control societies should be wary of (with social control, I mean people using excessive methods to enforce their own opinions, not some sort of conspiracy).
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 17, 2011 22:01:00 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. Australian (NSW) law, at least for government jobs, only allows decisions to be made on the basis of the stated requirements of the position. If they want to avoid someone with certain views about evolution, they have to write that into the job requirements. 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. You may be right, but (1) you probably have a limited sample to generalise from, (2) christians (or apparent christians) are not without fault here too, and (3) this is not the topic of this thread. I was rather wanting to discuss (a) the facts of this matter where they may be in doubt, (b) the exact nature of the issue, and (c) how christians might respond. Ranting is fine, but I'd rather be constructive. It is obvious that many, many people have a vested emotional attachment to evolution which puts it beyond rational criticism. I think this is true. As has been discussed elsewhere on this forum, when even impeccably qualified and atheist scientists question elements of evolution (e.g. natural selection as the sole explanation of change), they can be met with an emotional response that suggests that natural selection is holy writ. But again, the interesting questions are: Why is this so? and How should we respond?
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Feb 17, 2011 22:43:50 GMT
My comments were about atheist intolerance which this article was discussing and I simply pointed out what would happen if " shudder" neo atheists ever gained control of a country. Get ready for gulags and a inquisition that would kill as many people in a day as the Catholic inquisition killed in a century.
My response is that neo atheism needs to be ground into the dust for everyone's sake. Even atheists have a vested interests in stomping this movement as this movement views them as some sort of Queslings and it certainly embarrassing to their intellectual credibility.
My only real suggestion to get rid of neo atheism is to really make stronger efforts from day one to educated people in science, history and philosophy so that this nonsense cannot take off. It is blatantly easy to refute them the problem is they don't have the intellectual credibility to realize they have been refuted.
Think of Tim getting accused of being a closet Catholic when he refutes them. This is neo atheism "intellectualism" at it's finest.
I have no quarrel with the Atheism of Flew or that of Tim here but this new bunch is bad news for humanity.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Feb 17, 2011 22:59:29 GMT
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? “One of yours” = “he’s a Christian”. You are a Christian, aren’t you? So is he. Therefore “one of yours”. Stating facts is not “partisanship”. The subject at hand in question includes public education about cosmological origins, so I can see why any institution would have reservations about someone who gives a glowing recommendation to the lawyer Phillip E. Johnson’s Defeating Darwin by Opening Minds and describes the notorious and reviled Creationist stalking horse Of Pandas and People as “a very even-handed book …. from a completely non-religious perspective”. An institution in Kentucky doubly so. What I haven’t found and what you have yet to produce is Gaskell saying “Yes, well I did endorse some Creationist propaganda in some of my popular writing, but since then I’ve realise that this was a mistake. So I want to make it clear that I don’t support that stuff in any way.” The newer, expurgated version of Modern Astronomy, the Bible and Creation was revised March 2010. Gaskell has been confronted with the fact he quietly removed the damning sections of that essay sometime between that date and November 1997 and has not seen fit to explain the convenient editing in any way. That reeks of underhand manipulation of the record. If, as you claim, he simply changed his mind, why doesn’t he say that? The evidence is there in his quiet and convenient revisions and his lack of an explanation for them. Show me Gaskell saying “I changed my mind and I was wrong to endorse blatant Creationist propaganda” and you’ll have a case. I’d call quietly removing endorsements of Defeating Darwin by Opening Minds and Of Pandas and People a “major difference”. Maybe you’re removed enough from the attempts by Creationist zealots to sneak their fantasy nonsense into public education in the US to not be aware of those books and what they represent but I doubt anyone in education in Kentucky would be. That would trigger alarm bells for anyone in the front line of defending science education against these Flat Earthers. Even if Gaskell only has some sympathy for those clowns, bad luck. If you lie down with those dogs and you can’t then complain about the flea bites.
|
|
|
Post by gakuseidon on Feb 17, 2011 23:11:15 GMT
Now I've dug a little deeper, however, I'm beginning to think he's not being entirely honest. 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. I don't know about his views in 1997, but in his recent comments (going by the links given by others above) he is clear that he believes in evolution as a fact, but that he has problems with the theory of evolution. Obviously there is concern that a Christian employee questioning the theory will open the door to accusations of sympathizing with creationism. It brings to mind the criticism that the late Stephen J Gould had to bear when he and a colleague promoted "punctuated equilibrium" over Darwinian gradualism. Creationists quickly took Gould's comments as saying that the theory of evolution is wrong. Here is an interesting article: "The Accidental Creationist: Why Stephen Jay Gould is bad for evolution." www.nonzero.org/newyorker.htmGould was widely criticized for pronouncing Darwinism dead, and he has long since qualified the claim. But the fact remains that he made the statement, it was silly, and it had consequences. When an interviewer asked Phillip Johnson how he came to suspect that Darwinism lacked scientific merit, he said that reading Gould's claim had been a formative experience. Gould's writings on punctuated equilibrium have been a particular gift to creationists. He dwells on gaps in the fossil record to argue that evolution works fitfully; creationists then quote him to argue that it doesn't work at all. (They love the conspiratorial aura of Gould's description of these gaps as the "trade secret of paleontology.")
Obviously, we can't hold scholars strictly responsible for how their words are used. There are lots of gaps in the fossil record, and though many biologists believe that Gould cites the record too selectively, it isn't his fault when creationists quote him dishonestly, as they sometimes do. Here is what Gould himself had to say: www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.htmlI am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad. Sad for many reasons...
But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part.
But we should borrow another metaphor and recognize that we too have to tread a straight and narrow path, surrounded by roads to perdition. For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Feb 17, 2011 23:14:44 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. That some might attempt to do so wouldn’t surprise me – I’m all too aware of the fanatics and one-eyed ideologues on my side of the divide since I deal with them every day. But anyone attempting to do so would struggle in a way someone pointing to Gaskell’s essay endorsing blatant and well-known Creationist propaganda as “very even-handed” wouldn’t. And if he was a Scientologist applying for a positon in a Psychology Department who had done some careful editing of an online essay to quietly remove his condemnation of modern psychiatry and books making crazy claims about psycho-pharmicology, would you still be defending him? A man who has expressed sympathy for the enemies of unbiased public education ISN’T the “best man for the job”. That’s the point. Evolution isn’t a “dogma”. It’s a body of interconnected science which is falsifiable. You belong to a church which actually does have dogmas and should be capable of telling the difference between a dogma and a scientific theory.
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Feb 17, 2011 23:28:04 GMT
Tim
First off I am far from convinced evolution is falsifiable and that puts me in some good intellectual company ( Popper). It seems to me you could modify the theory to hold any data or discovery.
However in this case the issue is this. His views on evolution are not one bit related to astronomy, unlike your example with the Scientologist. Heck even if the scientologist did mainstream psychology I would care not with him holding a post in psychological research.
Well if evolutionist act dogmatically it makes one suspicious there views are also dogmatic. Be it as it may like I said for all I know evolution could have been falsified a thousand times now but they simply refuse to admit it ( cause they seem to be a bit too attached to it for their own good) or if someone was to falsify it that person would be up for a modern day inquisition.
This is about trust and you rarely engender trust by acting dogmatically.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Feb 18, 2011 0:03:58 GMT
Tim First off I am far from convinced evolution is falsifiable and that puts me in some good intellectual company ( Popper). It seems to me you could modify the theory to hold any data or discovery. A blue whale fossil deep in pre-Cambrian strata would be a bit hard to "modify the theory" around. Given the context – a staff position involving public outreach and education in Kentucky - I can see why a guy who was “faculty advisor” to his university’s “Intelligent Design” club was treated with suspicion. Given the ID movement’s leaked “wedge strategy”, such a guy would be regarded as toxic when it comes to any public education role in a place like Kentucky. That’s a non sequitur. Some people behaving as though a scientific theory is a dogma doesn’t make it one. And that is simply nonsense and is the kind of argument fringe crackpots use to convince themselves that their rejection by mainstream scholars is due to some big conspiracy. If there was some major flaw in evolutionary biology that demonstrably falsified the whole kit and caboodle that would be some scholar’s ticket to a Nobel Prize and international fame. Scientists love overturning previous orthodoxies – it makes their careers.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 18, 2011 0:23:08 GMT
Nobody is saying that he should be discriminated against because he is a Christian, that would not only be wrong it would be disgusting. This is the University of Kentucky where talking about here, I'm sure it's full of scientists who are Christian and no doubt doing a fine job. Gaskel on the other hand has shown that he has dismissed one scientific principle based on theology he has demonstrated a penchant for doing so in the future. The potential that he could be compromised in his own field of study should a conflict of a religious principle become involved. If science trumped his other beliefs then that won't interfere with his work, but as it stands his beliefs trump science. He has simply shown that he's a scientist who has demonstrated that his impartiality has been compromised. Whatever Gaskel's beliefs are (and I don't care if he believes in ghost and not what.) When it comes to doing science you have to be impartial. He has shown he is not capable of this, along with the educational issue Tim has pointed out means he is not qualified for the job.
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Feb 18, 2011 0:28:51 GMT
Some geologic force put the whale there.
Tim you miss the point completely, this is about trust. If evolutionist act like the inquisition then people don't trust them. That is a fact of life. As it seems now in the evolutionist camp having a view that disagrees with them is verbooten. Again people who act in such a manner hardly generate trust.
I will simply say you are far more trusting of scientists then I am. People do not like having their views disproven and if such a disproof came around it would be rationalized away ( for example like I did with your whale comment). People especially do not like having their views on metaphysics overturned and for some scientist, evolution is way more then a theory.
I was not aware that ID Astronomy looked differently then mainstream astronomy. I was also not aware of their being a difference between ID blackholes and mainstream blackholes.
The university settled out of court cause they knew what they did was wrong.
For all these comments I am not a creationist. However I think the University of Kentucky fulfilled every stereotype there is about evolutionary scientist.
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Feb 18, 2011 0:52:54 GMT
Oh I got to share this email about the Gaskell from the Univ of Kentucky
”It has become clear to me that there is virtually no way Gaskell will be offered the job despite his qualifications that stand above those of any other applicant. Other reasons will be given for this choice when we meet Tuesday. In the end, however, the real reason why we will not offer him the job is because of his religious beliefs in matters that that are unrelated to astronomy or to any of the duties specified for this position (For example, the job does not involve outreach in biology.)... If Martin were not so superbly qualified, so breathtakingly above the other applicants in background and experience, then our decision would be much simpler. We could easily choose another applicant, and we could content ourselves with the idea that Martin's religious beliefs played little role in our decision. However, this is not the case. As it is, no objective observer could possibly believe that we excluded Martin on any basis other than religious....."
There, the university said they did it out of bigotry. None of this protecting the common man nonsense, they did it cause he was a Christian.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Feb 18, 2011 0:57:53 GMT
Some geologic force put the whale there. The field of biostratigraphy is a teensy bit more sophisticated than that - such a blithe dismissal wouldn't last ten seconds unless it could be backed up with more than wishful thinking. These are real scientists we're talking about, not the Institute for Creation Research. You have a remarkable capacity for thinking in black and white and in lumping people into “camps”. You’ve made a number of leaps of logic there, one of which is that the people who rejected Gaskell’s candidature are people called “evolutionists” and another being that by doing so they “acted like the inquisition”. This letter from one of the committee members gives a clear indication of the kind of thinking involved in the decision against Gaskell and it sure as hell doesn’t sound like the pronouncements of an inquisitor on a heretic to me. As someone who makes the call on hotly contested hiring decisions every day of my life, I can see it as a hard decision taken by people who are, like all hiring managers and committees, erring on the side of caution to mitigate possible future risk. What you did with my whale comment is nothing like what could happen in real science. The rest of the your generalisations show little understanding of how science works or how an academic discipline functions. Science is based on disproving past views – that’s its strength.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Feb 18, 2011 1:06:01 GMT
There, the university said they did it out of bigotry. None of this protecting the common man nonsense, they did it cause he was a Christian. The "religious views" in question are obviously his endorsement of Creationist material and his work with his university's ID group. To pretend they didn't hire him simply because "he was a Christian" is absurd. This is Kentucky - most of the hiring panel were probably Christians. Nice use of an out of context quote with a bit of creative interpretation there.
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Feb 18, 2011 1:27:09 GMT
Tim
Maybe this is an American thing but in the US we believe you have a right to your personal views and the right to associate with who you will. His views on biology did not affect his ability to do astronomy nor did his associations affect his ability to astronomy and that is all that matters.
I am sure you did a survey of the panels religious opinions. Until we know their religious views we simply have their email to go on. Their email stated it was cause of his religious reasons.
Funny if they wanted to oppose him over creationism/ ID they could have sent an email like this.
”It has become clear to me that there is virtually no way Gaskell will be offered the job despite his qualifications that stand above those of any other applicant. Other reasons will be given for this choice when we meet Tuesday. In the end, however, the real reason why we will not offer him the job is because of his SUPPORT OF CREATIONISM/ INTELLIGENT DESIGN in matters that that are unrelated to astronomy or to any of the duties specified for this position (For example, the job does not involve outreach in biology.)... If Martin were not so superbly qualified, so breathtakingly above the other applicants in background and experience, then our decision would be much simpler. We could easily choose another applicant, and we could content ourselves with the idea that Martin's ASSOCIATION WITH FRINGE SCIENCE VIEWS played little role in our decision. However, this is not the case. As it is, no objective observer could possibly believe that we excluded Martin on any basis other than HIS ASSOCIATION WITH FRINGE SCIENCE....."
Now if the email looked like that you would have a case. But it doesn't. Only one taking the email out of context is you. Good try Tim.
I was not aware that I had to write a paper on science to make a quick comment on a blog. As I have told your before your ability to type comments does not make an argument. Your ability to say I am not aware of how to do science simply proves you can type that on a keyboard.
However as it is what the University of Kentucky did was illegal, and immoral and you have argued the committee that did it was Christian without an iota of evidence and you have argued they did it for reasons other then religious which would seem to be a surprise to them.
Let me tell you another thing about the US Tim. You don't settle out of court if you think you got a case.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 18, 2011 1:46:47 GMT
"Let me tell you another thing about the US Tim. You don't settle out of court if you think you got a case."
Ho they did have a case as I point out above but to a 'jury' of Kentuckians, don't make me laugh. I wish they did take it to court though I totally understand why they didn't.
|
|