Who needs another “show trial” ? I am not sure it would have prevailed in Kentucky. This settlement allows the University to move on and hire someone who values science for science sake.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

They should take it to trial. To demonstrate his ability to think rationally, Gaskill should have to present evidence in court to *prove* creationist nonsense. He would lose dramatically, and thinking people could gain some insight into who (or what) is at fault for scientific illiteracy.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Yeah, it seems like caving in to me too.  It’s one thing to discriminate based on personal & religious views, but these are views which can have a direct impact on the quality of the job.  Hiring Gaskell would be like hiring a flat-Earther to teach geography, or a young-Earth creationist to teach about the fossil record.

I suppose though, being Kentucky, going to trial may have been risky for the university depending on what judge they ended up with, and probably more expensive than the $125K settlement especially if there are appeals involved.  Still, I am concerned about the precedent this may set.  No doubt those on the religious right will play this as a win for their side, and this may encourage other evo-deniers to take their cases to court.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Dawkins characterizes a researcher:
“He publishes mathematical papers in learned journals, taking it for granted that the universe is nearly fourteen billion years old and using this assumption in his calculations. He bottles up his personal beliefs so successfully that he is capable of performing calculations that assume an old universe and make a genuine contribution to science. ... I would object to employing him, on the grounds that his research papers, and his lectures to students, are filled with what he personally believes to be falsehoods. He is a fake, a fraud, a charlatan, drawing a salary for a job that could have gone to an honest astronomer. “

Yikes! So the guy makes a “genuine contribution to science”, but because he doesn’t believe in the hypothesis he is examining, he shouldn’t be able to hold a job in the field?

Hey Richard, science is about entertaining a hypothesis, seeing where it leads, and examining the evidence for and against it. It is completely contrary to the scientific endeavor to require belief in the hypothesis you’re testing. Science aint about *you*, your personal beliefs, and your ideological purity, it’s about the arguments and evidence you put forth.

Yet another reason Hitch must hang on - the other Horsemen of the Counter Apocalypse are going off the ideological deep end with increasing enthusiasm.

First Sam finds Objective Morality with transparently flimsy arguments, bolstered in the end only by intolerance for opposing values, then Dawkins recommends Scientific Purges.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

buybuydandavis,

You don’t think such self-serving hypocrisy is cause for concern?  Evolution and The Big Bang are not scientific hypotheses.  They are well entrenched and supported Scientific Theories.  Choosing not to hire someone because their worldview is antithetical to the stated purpose of the job seems reasonable.  That’s the importance of people like Dawkins and Harris is that they pound into the collective conscious that the worldviews ARE antithetical.

At what point will this person become true to their beliefs and become a serious embarrassment to the University.  My guess is right after he get tenure.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

buybuydandavis,

Your synopsis of Harris’ argument with respect to our being able to discover true statements about events influencing the well being of conscious creatures (i.e. objective reality) appears almost as well considered as that of Marilynne Robinson’s.

As for Mr. Gaskell, I am also disappointed in the University for not taking this further.  Hiring a man who, by endorsing creationism, outright denounces the methodology of the Astronomy department he might have represented would have resulted in a clear and necessary conflict of interest.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I think atheists and secularists should start applying for the jobs of priests/rabbis/reverends and then sue these churches/religions when they are denied these positions based solely on their beliefs.  Let us put some of the religious’ “tax free” dollars to work in legal fees and settlement costs.

Needed:  Atheists and secularist’s actors need to portray priests/rabbis/reverends in leading a gullible flock of people to fictional nirvana.  Good pay and benefits, free housing, tryouts required ~ must be able to read fluent Bronze Age fiction with convincing passion while maintaining a straight face.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Correction:  “objective reality” in my above post should have read “objective morality.”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Honestly, his opinions don’t seem to be terribly contradictory to the pursuit of astronomical science. From the tone of this publication, aimed at Christians, he believes everything proven in science to be true. It’s not like he claims that such-and-such theory can’t be true because it’s not in the bible. He denies nothing.
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/gaskell/Martin_Gaskell_Bible_Astronomy.html

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Steven M.—If Gaskell were an fellow astronomer in the time of Galileo would he (Gaskell) have found Galileo’s claims of the earth revolving around the sun an interesting theory to be further investigated?  Or would he side with those who considered it blasphemy?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@buybuydandavis: You seriously don’t see a problem when what people do on a conscious level conflicts with what they are subconsciously trying to achieve? Does the word “sabotage” mean anything to you?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Matthew Durham - If I wasn’t clear, I object to Sam’s claims to have established the existence of Objective Morality and that Well Being of Conscious Creatures is that Objective Morality. You just equate the two in an offhanded manner, which is even worse.

@Patrick - It isn’t hypocrisy, in science, to entertain a proposition that you don’t believe in and see where it leads. There are arguments between Frequentist and Bayesian probabilists, but no one would make cries of hypocrisy if a Bayesian wrote a cogent paper with Frequentist assumptions.

@Mike H. - Are you really saying Science should have the same standards as a Faith Community?

@John Frum - Dawkins stipulates that the researcher publishes and teaches good science, and still wouldn’t give him the job. He proposes firing him for thought crime. I don’t approve.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

buybuydandavis,
This situation has nothing to do with “entertain[ing] a proposition you don’t believe in and see[ing] where it leads.”  The evidence has already led very far away from creationism, and this man is refusing to pay attention to that evidence.  He is not following the scientific method…quite the opposite.  He is clinging to a superstition in the face of the very science that he has been trained in and that he represents as a professional.

Further, his belief in creationism is not as separate from his field as it might seem on the surface.  How likely is it that Gaskell is a creationist who believes that God created the Earth and mankind…14 billion years ago?  I think it’s not very likely.  If he believes, even in a general way, the basic assumptions that go along with creationism (particularly that the earth is young), then his credibility as an astronomer is seriously undermined.  If he publishes peer-reviewed work that ignores his own professed beliefs about the nature of the universe, then he is an egregious liar.  Obviously, questioning scientific theories is how we make advances, but you don’t hire a scientist who is willing to disregard—not question but DISREGARD—established science.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

buybuydandavis,

You’ll have to forgive me for describing Harris’ position in an “offhand” manner.  I was merely responding in kind.  If you’d like to discuss your reasons for dismissing Harris’ argument in a more extensive fashion, feel free to present your case.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

A few questions: Was this guy next in line for this job? Doesn’t the University have the right to hire as they wish? Could this guy not perform the job requirements? Did the institution expressely admit to passing over him due to his religious beliefs? They may have been smart to settle.

One exception I take with my fellow atheists is that they tend to apply to all religious folk the characteristics of the religious literalists. The scientific mind comes to terms with fact when prevented with evidence of the age of the Universe. Enter religious beliefs to said mind and that doesn’t mean such data is rejected. It also doesn’t prove there is no god. It just contradicts popular stories about existence and God.

Is there proof Mr. Gaskell has not developed a new interpretation to the text he holds sacred, or has he rejected the data and stand fast that the Earth is 6000 years old? When we say to ourselves “Look at all we know,” is it so bad when one guy says “and it was made by God.”?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Keep in mind I just saw this site today, so I don’t really know much of the audience.  Personally, I think all religion is bull.  But my dad, taught me early on that science is the “how” things happen, religion is the “why” things happen.  It seems that science is becoming more and more a religion based on anti-theism.

To discriminate is to discriminate, whatever the argument.  Do I approve of a person hiring someone who overtly has conflicting interest, no.  But this scientist, whatever his personal views are, obviously has had the training and credentials to apply for that job.  He should be given the job based on merit, not personal philosophy.

Now substitute “race” for “personal philosophy/personal views” and see if this argument sounds logical to you now.  Think about it. Just think about it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Drew Taylor,

We cannot be held responsible for the accident of our race, which is why it is unjust to discriminate against anyone based upon it.  Do believe that we also have no choice over our personal philosophy/views?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Drew,

Religion explains nothing more than mankind’s inability to cope with the reality of the world around us and makeup explanations that make us feel better.  Look up the definition of myth.  If a scientist’s personal views are diametrically opposed to the nature of science itself, then it becomes relevant. 

Regarding your last sentence; would you hire a white supremacist to be the steward of a holocaust museum?  Beliefs do matter.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.