two magesteria In the courtroom

Three years before he died, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, one of my favorite popularizers of science, published a book called Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, basically consigning the two subjects to different realms of thought and influence. Gould maintained that the two areas of inquiry asked and answered different questions that need not impinge on each other. The reaction was, well, reactionary and not all of it truly thoughtful. I thought at the time that many of the reviewers were hell-bent on developing their own Theory of Everything that reconciled all areas of human thought. Many scientists, skeptics, and atheists (sometimes embodied in one person) roundly denounced the work (and Gould, in the kind of low-blow ad hominem attacks they decry in others, I might add) for daring to try to "legitimize" religion or spirituality in the same breath as science.

This post is not about that.

I mention it because, as was inevitable, the question of whether a scientist can have any kind of religious faith or even just entertain the idea separately from his or her own professional work has now reached the courtroom stage in the case of Dr. C. Martin Gaskell, a  University of Nebraska astronomer who was turned down for a post by the University of Kentucky because an internet search of his name revealed he was an evangelical Christian who wasn't shy about writing about astronomy and the Bible. Gaskell has taken pains to point out that he is not a creationist and he does not have any problems with the theory of evolution. A department staff member, Sally A. Shafer,

found links to his notes for a lecture that explores, among other topics, how the Bible could relate to contemporary astronomy. “Clearly this man is complex and likely fascinating to talk with,” Ms. Shafer wrote, “but potentially evangelical.” . . . Francis J. Manion, Dr. Gaskell’s lawyer, said: “I couldn’t have made up a better quote. ‘We like this guy, but he is potentially Jewish’? ‘Potentially Muslim’?”

Put in those terms, this becomes not just an issue of scientific accuracy and honesty, but of censorship and, yes, plain ole bigotry.

The job Gaskell applied for was running the new UKentucky student observatory, which also involves lecturing publicly about science. Keep in mind that UKentucky is not far from the Creation Museum in the heart of the Bible Belt, which may have contributed to their jitters about hiring someone they perceive as working for the other side. But it may be that it's that perception that's the problem. One of the basic rules of discrimination and bigotry as that it lumps large numbers of people together in a single group without regard for individual differences. The terrorists who took down the Twin Towers in 2001 were Muslim; hence all Muslims are terrorists. Stated so baldly, bigotry is laughably simplistic to anyone with the ability to analyze and think for themselves—a trait I would hope scientists and education leaders would possess in abundance.

Now, bear with me for a moment and imagine you are a practicing Christian—not an unquestioning, blindly faithful zombie Christian, but a thoughtful, questioning, testing-your-faith kinda Christian—living near the University of Kentucky where Dr. Gaskell has just been hired, and you see an advertisement for this talk by Dr. Gaskell: "Modern Astronomy, the Bible and Creation." Back in the day, when I was a Jehovah's Witness, I had a really healthy curiosity about Life, the Universe, and Everything and a talk like this would have more than piqued my interest. Quite likely, I'd have trundled off to hear it, possibly dragging one or two others of my equally curious JW friends with me. Here's what I would have heard (PDF) according to his own summary:

I give my responses to some of the questions I am most frequently asked on the subject of the Bible and modern astronomy. I start out by emphasizing that many scientists and philosophers have strong religious beliefs and I give some quotes from famous scientists and philosophers. I list, and briefly discuss, some of the main theological interpretational viewpoints of the creation stories in Genesis. It is explained that there are more than just two extreme views on the origin of the universe and that the majority of scientists who are Christians adhere neither to the view that the Bible is irrelevant to the earth's origin (which exponents of atheistic evolution claim) nor the view that God made the earth essentially as it now is in six 24-hour periods about 6000 years ago (the “young earth creationist” position.) [emphasis mine] The origin of Bishop Ussher's date of creation is explained and the question of “days” in Genesis 1 is discussed. Examples of where modern astronomy is supporting the details of Genesis 1 are described. A list of suggested readings for those who wish to read more about Christianity, the Bible, and some of the scientific issues is appended.

Gaskell goes on to say that, "The main controversy has been between people at the two extremes (young earth creationists and humanistic evolutionists). 'Creationists' attack the science of 'evolutionists.' I believe that this sort of attack is very bad both scientifically and theologically. The 'scientific' explanations offered by 'creationists' are mostly very poor science." "Mostly very poor science," huh? Hmmm. And that would have piqued my interest too. Why is it poor science, I would have wondered? Further investigation would have followed—and did, in a similar situation, leading me to where I am now: skeptic in fact if not by affiliation, and Buddhist fellow-traveller.

Honestly, none of Gaskell's talk sounds Creationist to me. What Gaskell is actually doing is finding common ground with his audience, in this case the Bible, to talk about science, without distorting either. This is something Jennifer does with just about every post she writes, but her common ground is pop culture. And as a former fundy science nerd, I can testify that science history this reasonably presented would have been greeted with interest by any but the most fundamentalist of Christians, who are probably already a write-off. But that's not what happened in Kentucky. There was nothing reasonable about the response in Kentucky. Oh, no. There was, instead, a "rush to judgment."

In recent years there's been more than a hint of the hysterical witch hunt in the voices of some skeptics and scientists crusading (and yes, I use that word intentionally) against creationism and Intelligent Design. Phil Plait, the favorite Bad Astronomer of Cocktail Party Physics, addressed this at a recent TAM meeting in his inimitable way, in a talk called "Don't be a Dick":

Part II

Part III

Rather than seeing someone like Gaskell as a possible bridge between the reasonable, questioning, curious Christian community (and there is one; I've been part of it), UKentucky freaked out about a possible PR nightmare in hiring someone perceived as a narrow-minded pseudo-scientist. One thing I don't think you can accuse Dr. Gaskell of is being a pseudo-scientist. If you skim his publication lists (he's now at the University of Texas), you'll see he's co-authoring with legitimate scientists in his field, and publishing in all the usual places that "real" astronomers publish in. Not the Discovery Institute, but the American Astronomical Society's journal, and other well-known scientific journals.

Now, call me crazy, but I always thought the purpose of a university was to offer education. It's hard to educate people if you don't speak at least some of their language. Most Christians—most religious people of any stripe—feel that scientists not only don't speak their language, but are only interested in belittling them, not in having a reasonable conversation with them. So even if you have questions, as a religious or spiritually inclined person, who are you supposed to ask, when the scientists will just mock you? As Phil says in his talk, we should be "relying on the merits of the arguments, which is what critical thinking is all about, what evidence-based reasoning is about." Not vitriol. Not bigotry. Not prejudice.

The truth about the history of scientific thought that many modern scientists would like to shove under the rug is that it sprang out of the only educated community in the middle ages and Renaissance: church clerics. Before the Age of Enlightenment was the Age of Enlightenment, it was the Age of Faith, and you can take the boy outta the church, but you can't take the church outta the boy. References to God and creation are everywhere in the history of scientific inquiry, even if only used metaphorically. Why not use them, as Gaskell does, as a lever to open the doors of blind faith just a crack, to slip in some scientific fact? It accomplishes more than just telling people they are fools and morons. Skepticism isn't teaching people what to think; it's teaching people how to think. You don't accomplish that by telling them that everything they know is wrong.

I'm glad Gaskell is bringing this issue to court, because it's something the scientific community needs to confront about itself. By tarring all spiritual seekers with the same brush of ignorance, extremists in the the secular world in general and the skeptical community in particular reveal their own fear of the Other, the same kind of cheap, petty, ignorant fear that white supremacists, jihadists, and homophobes display. Not nice company to be lumped into, is it? Fear isn't rational, though. And that alone should wake you up, if you're one of those frothing at the mouth skeptic/atheists. Use the rational mind that God gave you, for Pete's sake.

Comments

[Jennifer Ouellette]

Oh, you've done it now. Excuse me while I go dig out my flame-retardant vest. :) Have not been following this issue closely enough to comment intelligently, but if the facts are as you present them -- i.e., Gaskell is not a creationist and accepts evolution, that is, his faith does not interfere with his science -- then I agree he should not be automatically dropped from consideration because he happens to be a person of faith.

A word to commenters: Please review our moderation policy and kindly adhere to it. Thanks.

[musubk]

"Gaskell has taken pains to point out that he is not a creationist and he does not have any problems with the theory of evolution."

False. He is not a young earth creationist, he is an old earth creationist. See his writings on it here - http://incolor.inetnebr.com/gaskell/Martin_Gaskell_Bible_Astronomy.html

Any form of 'god-guided' evolution is, in fact, contrary to evolution, since evolution depends on random mutation. When he says that he 'does not have any problems with the theory of evolution', what he is saying is that he doesn't have a problem with his own pseudoscientific understanding of evolution, where the fundamental random component is axed in favor of designa nd intent, and "It is quite likely that Genesis is describing physical things that happened in space and time in the history of our universe." He says: "It is true that there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory (a good thing or else many biologists and geologists would be out of a job) and that these problems are bigger than is usually made out in introductory geology/biology courses". He seems to be a fan of intelligent design: "I should mention something ... called “Intelligent Design”. This movement, which is often erroneously confused with young-earth creationism, is just exploring the question of what evidence there is in the universe for design by an intelligence. This is really a general, non-religious question".

"What Gaskell is actually doing is finding common ground with his audience, in this case the Bible, to talk about science, without distorting either."

Which is absolutely not true. He is distorting the science at the core. It is hard to understand how you don't see teleological evolution as distorting random mutation + selection at a basic level.

And gosh, I thought we'd seen the end of that ridiculous Don't Be A Dick speech. "So even if you have questions, as a religious or spiritually inclined person, who are you supposed to ask, when the scientists will just mock you?" Where is this happening, that honest questions are met with instant mockery void of content. Plait never was able to produce an example of what he was talking about, which is why most people wrote off the speech as an empty truism.

"The truth about the history of scientific thought that many modern scientists would like to shove under the rug is that it sprang out of the only educated community in the middle ages and Renaissance: church clerics."

[citation needed]. Who is doing that?

"Skepticism isn't teaching people what to think; it's teaching people how to think."

Skeptics are no longer being skeptics when they tell homeopaths they're wrong. Or antivaxxers. Or, wait, is it only religion that gets singled out for the kid-glove treatment?
Debunking untruths is certainly something that does not belong in the skeptic community.

"You don't accomplish that by telling them that everything they know is wrong."

Again, [citation needed].

"if you're one of those frothing at the mouth skeptic/atheists"

[citation needed].

I think you're making up strawmen, just like the Don't Be A Dick speech.

[musubk]

http://lclane2.net/susan.html

"there's a new group formed at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln by students who know evolution is false. They are the Intelligent Design Theorists of Nebraska, and their faculty advisor is astronomy professor Martin Gaskell."

[musubk]

And it's not as if this was the only concern, and he was otherwise a stellar candidate. Chair of UK Physics and Astronomy (Michale Cavagnero) contacted Gaskell's supervisor at UNL, Roger Kirby, for a reference:

"Kirby advised Cavagnero that Gaskell’s main source of conflict with UNL faculty was his desire to decrease his teaching load. Although Gaskell had been hired primarily to teach, Kirby informed Cavagnero that Gaskell had applied some of his research funding toward the hiring of an instructor to replace him as a teacher so that he could focus more exclusively on research. as a result, Kirby complained that he was placed in the difficult position of having to hire replacement instructors. Kirby further advised Cavagnero that Gaskell often refused to accept the decision of his colleagues and administrators, and found ways to rehash old issues."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44586388/Gaskell-v-Univ-of-Ky-11-10

He wanted to get out of teaching. Bear in mind the job he was applying for was outreach (i.e. purely teaching), not a faculty position.

[Lee Kottner]

musubk:

1. False. He is not a young earth creationist, he is an old earth creationist. See his writings on it here - http://incolor.inetnebr.com/gaskell/Martin_Gaskell_Bible_Astronomy.html

Lee: Uh, clarification, plz. You just cited the same PDF I linked to in the post. It's 10 pages long. I'm not finding evidence that he's an old earth creationist. All he's doing is discussing the various types of creationism. Further, he says he respects the ID people "because they are strongly committed to the Bible, but I don't believe it is the interpretation the Bible requires of itself, and it certainly clashes head-on with science." (p. 4).

2. "The truth about the history of scientific thought that many modern scientists would like to shove under the rug is that it sprang out of the only educated community in the middle ages and Renaissance: church clerics."

[citation needed]. Who is doing that?

Lee: How often do you hear scientists acknowledge that Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, et al were good churchgoers? I can't give you a citation because I can't prove a negative.

3. Skeptics are no longer being skeptics when they tell homeopaths they're wrong. Or antivaxxers. Or, wait, is it only religion that gets singled out for the kid-glove treatment? Debunking untruths is certainly something that does not belong in the skeptic community.

Lee: Distortion of my words. Just telling people they're wrong accomplishes nothing but making them defensive. And presenting people with facts and research will only work if you can get them to reason. It's not, as Plait says, a matter of winning arguments; it's a matter of teaching people to analyze and develop their critical thinking skills. Nobody likes admitting they're wrong with someone rubbing their nose in it. It's hard enough to admit you've been wrong for years without any prompting but your own, but that's the only way it sticks. I don't say you shouldn't point out the error in people's thinking, just that merely telling them they're wrong isn't sufficient or useful.

4. "You don't accomplish that by telling them that everything they know is wrong."

Again, [citation needed].

Lee: Simon Singh's libel lawsuit. http://skepticblog.org/2009/05/11/simon-singhs-libel-suit/
In the end, The British Chiropractic Association still refused to admit Singh was right and they were wrong. They merely dropped the suit.

5. "if you're one of those frothing at the mouth skeptic/atheists"

[citation needed].

Lee: Richard Dawkins's book, The God Delusion. That's a pretty frothing-at-the-mouth, inflammatory title, in my opinion.

6. "there's a new group formed at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln by students who know evolution is false. They are the Intelligent Design Theorists of Nebraska, and their faculty advisor is astronomy professor Martin Gaskell."

Lee: This link is now six years old. Gaskell is no longer at Nebraska and perhaps this experience was part of his loss of enchantment with ID. Hard to say. But no longer relevant.

7. And it's not as if this was the only concern, and he was otherwise a stellar candidate. Chair of UK Physics and Astronomy (Michale Cavagnero) contacted Gaskell's supervisor at UNL, Roger Kirby, for a reference:

Lee: The deposition document (which I also linked to) raises other issues not discussed in this post, which aren't relevant to the argument I'm making. Now who's setting up straw men?

You're free to not like Phil's lecture, and I can see why someone like you wouldn't. I'm just as free to cite it too, since Jennifer graciously allows me to post here.

[Glendon Mellow]

"The God Delusion" is a frothing-at-the mouth title for a book? I think I could come up with some titles that froth more than that. Maybe more adjectives would really get the spittle flying.

I agree with some of the things you have to say. I find there can sometimes be a tough balance between discrimination and also listening to the words of a religious-scientist while keeping my mind alerted to something that doesn't gel due to that religion. It doesn't mean atheist scientists are always scientifically correct, but I do find I trust them more easily not to slip something religious past me.

[Lee Kottner]

Glendon,

I agree "The God Delusion" is a mild example, but it is inflammatory. The moment you call something that people base so much of their identity on a delusion, you've lost them. It reduces the argument to name-calling. I love PZ Myers, but this is often what he ends up doing, and I think it hurts his otherwise very good, very clear arguments.

I think the key here is to keep an open mind and to use the same critical faculties that we apply to science. If there's no evidence, there's no evidence, no matter how much we want there to be and what we base our identity on. But that doesn't mean there never will be, or that we know all the answers now.

[Glendon Mellow]

Hi Lee,

If someone wrote a book called "The Caffeine Delusion", as a devoted coffee-drinker, my interest would be piqued; not lost. (Currently I consider it may be my favourite placebo.)

The Gaskell case is interesting - when I started blogging my artwork, at first I wasn't sure if I should mention being an atheist. Has it helped me get some of my illustration contracts? I can only speculate; it hasn't come up. Would someone attempt to hire me to paint at altarpiece for their church? Again, I can only speculate. I would say they are free to decide to go with someone who is not only technically competent, but also shares their beliefs in the hopes it somehow informs their work.

If Gaskell has some questions about evolution and leans toward a type of old-earth creationism -and there's a field of other candidates to choose from- the question of how those beliefs inform his work seems to be something some on the hiring committee wanted to address. Is that discrimination or finding the most suitable person for the job?

[Lee Kottner]

Hi Glendon,

You're obviously not as easily insulted as I am, :^) although I'm not sure caffeine is that closely tied to my identity (I'm a tea fan, not a coffee consumer). I'm not even a religious person now (though I was) and I felt insulted by Dawkins's book, simply because he makes such sweeping generalizations about people with spiritual beliefs.

You raise some interesting questions about your artwork, but I'm not sure the analogy holds. Art is about personal expression, even when it's commissioned; you hire a painter because you like their style. Fact doesn't really enter into it, even in representational art. In science, it's all about the facts, so there's not much, if any, room for fudging. But I do think it's possible to separate religious belief from cold, hard facts, to a certain extent. There's always a tension there, and when it becomes untenable, you do what I did: jump ship, one way or the other. But I do believe it need not affect one's work. It's a personal and philosophical problem, not an employment problem.

I'm not entirely convinced that Gaskell is an Old-Earther either. If that's the case, then, yes, I agree that should be a factor in hiring him. But being religious or simply discussing the idea with others does not equal belief in Old-Earth or any other kind of pseudo evolutionary theory. And he is right that the field is far from settled. No legitimate scientist questions evolution as a process, but how it happens is still not entirely clear. I think everybody in the field has questions about evolution, except whether it actually is going on right now and has in the past. But that's true of lots of biological processes. We know they happen, but we don't know the mechanism.

[Jennifer Ouellette]

Another blogger weighs in:
http://scienceblogs.com/deanscorner/2010/12/potentially_evangelical_a_rare.php

[PZ Myers]

I agree that we should be relying on the merits of the arguments.

So why is Gaskell promoting the work of Hugh Ross, Philip Johnson, and Michael Behe? Why is he recommending the awful Discovery Institute textbook, Of Pandas and People?

The problem is not that he is an evangelical Christian, or that he's incompetent in his specific field of study: religion or any other legal extracurricular hobby should never be a criterion for employment, and by all accounts he's a good astronomer. The problem is that he is evangelizing for bad science in fields outside his discipline.

I wouldn't want Hugh Ross running an outreach program at my university, and I wouldn't want Gaskell for the same reason. He wouldn't recognize an argument of merit if it came up and poked him in the eye.

[Lee Kottner]

PZ, what do you mean by promoting? If you mean listing it in the bibliography he prepared for the public, then I would counter that, again, you have to know your audience, and start with stuff that won't turn them off right away. Smart people who are asking questions will eventually be turned off by this crap, as I was, and start looking at real science. The other folks--well, you're not going to convince them anyway.

I think one of the underlying problems with trying to excise religious belief from the scientific community is that efforts to kill religion only make it stronger. Religions like persecution and martyrdom. The only way to kill them is to let them die of neglect. And that takes time.

[Glendon Mellow]

Lee, if you agree that being an Old-Earther should be a factor in hiring him, then may I suppose you agree that a church may not be considered discriminatory for hiring a devout person as a priest instead of an atheist person with the same credentials? Would that be a personal and philosophical problem or an employment problem?

You believe it need not affect one's work. That's true in many scientists' cases, I'm sure. His paper says he has developed those notes based on public talks given at many universities. He has a decent disclaimer at the very bottom saying he doesn't necessarily endorse the views on the links provided. But the huge number of links to all these places is a statement too, especially since he takes pains to scientifically correct the views he disagrees with, such as a 6000 year old Earth.

A note about my art-analogy. Artists are not always hired for style or personal expression. Re-dos, corrections and matching expectations are a huge, huge part of what we do. Gaskell was being considered in part for scientific outreach, and a large portion of his online presence includes religious apologetics. That may not be matching expectations for the job.

[Lee Kottner]

Hmmmm, interesting question, Glendon. I guess in the end I need to retract that thing about being an Old-Earther and use the criteria I started with: can you do the job without letting your personal beliefs affect your ability to carry out your duties? Since outreach is part of the job Gaskell applied for, how he goes about it is an important factor. Part of the problem, as I said earlier, is that even talking about these theories can get you branded as a "believer" if you do anything but roundly condemn them. That's not a good strategy when you're trying to convince others that they're not viable. A reasoned argument has to consider the idea in detail, which an often sound like endorsement to people who aren't paying attention. What you call "religious apologetics" someone else might call a reasonable discussion.

"But the huge number of links to all these places is a statement too, especially since he takes pains to scientifically correct the views he disagrees with, such as a 6000 year old Earth."

I think part of what he's doing with this exhaustive list is saying "start here," which is what you do when you're conducting what amounts to a survey course for a non-academic audience. His disclaimer speaks for itself.

As for hiring atheists to fill a church position, you'd be surprised how many folks in those positions have lost their own faith. Divinity school often has that effect.

[Kevin]

What's irrational is believing in something without evidence or despite contradictory evidence, which describes all religious belief.

One of the primary traits of Evangelicalism is a belief in Biblical literalism (citation: http://isae.wheaton.edu/defining-evangelicalism/defining-the-term-in-contemporary-times). This is, quite simply, in direct opposition to scientific pursuits. It is not at all unreasonable for someone interviewing an applicant for a scientific position to doubt the applicant's ability to perform in that position when that applicant identifies with a group that believes mythology to be factual, and furthermore gives talks claiming his own subject is in support of that mythology, blatantly and misleadingly disregarding evidence in the process. Modern astronomy does not support Genesis, and anyone who claims otherwise either is being disingenuous or is dangerously misinformed. For one exceedingly simple example, the Genesis narrative explicitly states that stars were created after seas on Earth. This is nonsense; any attempt to justify it displays an unscientific mentality. Science goes where the evidence leads, and the evidence does not lead to Biblical literalism or any related apologetic views.

For scientists to "speak the language" of religious belief only lends credence to those beliefs in the minds of believers. Trying to meet them in the middle only emboldens them and weakens science by muddying the waters.

[Lee Kottner]

Kevin, you managed to miss the whole point of this post. In fact, you've done exactly the same thing as UKentucky, with your citation. Not every Christian, not even every evangelical, believes exactly the same things in the privacy of their own heads. If you lump people into groups like that and write them off, you're defeating your own purpose, because you'll never reach them. If you read Gaskell's talk, you'd see that he doesn't agree with a literal interpretation of the Bible. (In fact, those literal interpretations of the Bible have lead to a number of disparate beliefs inside Christianity, which Gaskell also points out.) Does that make him an evangelical in your book?

The fact is that Gaskell speaks both in the language of science and the language of evangelicals and has been reaching out to evangelicals to explain a little science to them--and not the other way around. When you're trying to inform people or even just broaden their minds, especially people who hold a totally opposing viewpoint from yours, you must meet them halfway. If fact is truly fact, I don't see how that can possibly weaken it. Can you give me an example? And it emboldens "believers" to do what? Believe more? Evangelize?

What people believe in their off hours and in their own time is irrelevant to their day jobs, as long as it doesn't interfere with how they perform the work they get paid for.

[Kevin]

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that Gaskell not only identifies with the evangelical group, he takes actions which support that identification. He may state that he doesn't agree with a literal interpretation of the Bible, but he gives talks that twist evidence to support Biblical claims.

The last thing any rationalist needs or wants is for apologists to mislead believers into thinking that their irrational, unsupported beliefs actually are supported. What will that accomplish other than confusing the issue even further?

I think it's very clear that Gaskell's beliefs do affect how he performs his work. He gives talks claiming, falsely, that the Bible is supported by modern astronomy. He doesn't keep his beliefs and his work separate; quite the opposite, his beliefs directly inform his unscientific interpretations of his work.

[Sensurround]

To commenter Kevin: i am an Orthodox Jew. That means i follow the rules as written and interpreted, but i don't wear the black coats, tall fur hats, and have the long sidelocks of Hasidic Jews. i am a regular guy. i listen to Metallica, Elton John, Handel, and have watched Dune, like Star Trek, and work as a computer technician. i live in a world of math and physics. i learned data structures in college. i also learned oceanography, gross anatomy, and started a course on stellar cartography(i had to drop it; way too advanced for me, but i thought it was awesome). i cannot say anything but how G-d is everywhere, in every facet of life. If i believe that G-d is truly omnipotent, then He created the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry we adhere to. Everything from the smallest atom in the double-helix to the mind-boggling size of "star factories", like MS 1358t62, found last February. i get such a kick out of reading about the findings in Cern. i am not a scientist. i am just a major nerd. To say that people who are religious can be or are "disingenuous or is dangerously misinformed" puts you on thin ice. i would like to point out that Evangelicalism is relatively new as a religion, as Christianity is, as well, despite being 2'000 years old. Look to what practicing Jewish scientists believe. Judaism predates Christianity by at least 2'500 years. Was it not a Muslim astronomer who first noted the phenomenon of parallax? Al-Battani died in 929, CE. He also is known to have made corrections to Ptolemy's theories, and was influential in the beginning of trigonometry. He believe in G-d and creation, being a devout Muslim. Dr. Nathan Aviezer is an American-Israeli physicist who wrote a book called, "In the beginning", about how Big Bang and creation can fit together. i have it, it's a great read. He writes on cosmology, evolution, creationism, and biology from a Jewish perspective. While Dr. J.R. Oppenheimer was not a completely practicing Jew, he did have a Jewish identity. i had the pleasure of meeting the son of one of his colleagues, who is a Rabbi by the name of Steinmetz. i'm not the only one. i have a friend who has since moved back to Israel. He is a geneticist. Believes in evolution and creation. Another friend lives in Australia. Ali is the research biologist i turn to when i have questions regarding human vs. other mammalian neurology. She is a Lubavich chassidic woman, and a convert to boot. a closer friend of mine works for Kappel here in the NY capital region. She is a nuclear physicist. She is a chassidic woman, as well. Her belief is unwavering. She designs nuclear power systems. There are many religious people who are not like your mentioned subject. Neither are the other Jewish scientists i know. He might have been wrong in his practices, but that doesn't make religious people like myself, or ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE "dangerously misinformed". We might have rednecks and hicks where i am in upstate NY, but i am not one of them. Relating to what Diandra L.P. wrote last week, science is not democratic because "the masses" are uninformed. Same here with religion, creation, and science. Most people have only some of the facts in each subject. If we educated people more, maybe they'll have different thoughts on the matter, as i do.

[Kevin]

There are no facts in support of religion or creationism. That's my whole point. I certainly did not say all religious people are disingenuous or dangerously misinformed; what I said was that applies to those who twist scientific evidence to support religious claims.

Certainly, there are many religious scientists who are able to keep their religious beliefs and their scientific work separate. It's simply that Gaskell is not one of these people, as his own actions demonstrate.

[Sensurround]

Thank you for clarifying. i think that those who twist science to fit religion are wrong. It should be a marriage of ideas. That is true; he can't. But MY point is that the Jewish scientists i know(myself included, though i'm not a scientist; just an avid nerd), DO NOT separate their work. Their work is part of their belief system. To me, science supports religion. As an example, the Jewish calendar this year is 5751. This is the amount of time since creation, as we believe. This time is from when Adam and Eve started their story in the Garden. The first seven days of creation, because they were part of a "building process", did not necessarily last 24 hours each. Who's to say that the seven days were not seven "eras", like the Paleolithic, Jurassic, etc.? If that were the case, these ages lasted for millions of years each, until such time as G-d deemed the world ready to "start". i see it as the re-indexing of an SQL database. The re-indexing process doesn't stop database access, just makes it slower. Once the re-index is finished, things resume at a normal pace.

[Lee Kottner]

Kevin sez: "I think it's very clear that Gaskell's beliefs do affect how he performs his work. He gives talks claiming, falsely, that the Bible is supported by modern astronomy. He doesn't keep his beliefs and his work separate; quite the opposite, his beliefs directly inform his unscientific interpretations of his work."

Does Gaskell give those talks on university time? And just how much do you know about the Bible? Because there are a lot of interesting synchronicities between scientific findings and the Bible, if you don't read it literally (God's rant to Job [38-42], is one example). The Bible isn't a science text, but it's not completely garbage either, as so many scientists seem to think. Even if written by men, it wasn't written by stupid men, or less sophisticated men, just men who didn't have telescopes or advanced math.

-"The last thing any rationalist needs or wants is for apologists to mislead believers into thinking that their irrational, unsupported beliefs actually are supported. What will that accomplish other than confusing the issue even further?"

Saying that Gaskell is an apologist because he dares to discuss the intersections between science and faith is simplistic. I would say he's taking a different approach. If you've ever taught a complicated subject, you know that you don't dump people in the deep end of it and expect them to have a sudden revelation of insight. Education doesn't work that way. In this case, first you have to teach critical skills, because asking "why" is not always encouraged in strict fundy communities. By comparing the various types of pseudo science, that's what he's doing, because even they don't agree with each other, and that shows that the dogma is far from being a unified front. Also showing that some of it is non-Biblical is a great blow to many fundamentalists, since they are so Bible-focused. The discrepancies he points out in his talk actually force people to ask questions. That's where rational thinking begins.

[[email protected]]

I think we need to keep in mind here that the facts ARE in dispute. We can all selectively pull out comments, but the judge, who looked through a lot more evidence than any of us have, refused summary judgments in either direction because he didn't feel either side had proved their case. Gaskell has a difficult case to prove - that his religious views were the _primary_ reason he was not hired. I don't think the available evidence provides incontrovertible support of that position. Neither did the judge, which is why neither of the requests for summary judgments was granted and the case remains open.

I am pretty sure that additional information will come to light as this case progresses through court that will make this particular situation much clearer.

The sad upshot of this case is likely that (just as has happened with sexism) people will be more circumspect when such issues are encountered. Instead of trying to deal with sensitive issues in the open, they will come up with code words ("not collegial") that are not legally actionable but have the same effect.

And please, media, stop referring to him as a University of Nebraska employee. He was when he applied for the UK job, but he's currently at the University of Texas.

[Lee Kottner]

Fair enough, Diandra. I think you're right that this is probably going to help bury an issue that should really be discussed in the open. That's one of the reasons I wanted to talk about it here.

[Kevin]

Sensurround: I don't see how your "example" is at all scientific. Religious scientists may feel religiously inspired by their scientific work, but that's a personal feeling. When they start telling the public that their work supports their religion, that's a conflict, and I don't think the majority of religious scientists do that, nor should they.

Lee: I acknowledge that the Bible contains some historical accuracies, as well as representing significant cultural evidence from an anthropological standpoint. What I don't see is any useful purpose behind pointing out "synchronicities" between science and the Bible to the masses.

I quite agree that critical thinking skills need to be taught first. From his description of his talks that you posted, I don't see that he's doing what you describe. The talks don't seem intended to point out discrepancies between different views, even if they do so incidentally. He explicitly states that most scientists who are Christians view the Bible as relevant to the earth's origin. Condemning religious fundamentalism is good, but proposing alternative ways for people to maintain their irrational views isn't good.

If the university hires him, he gets to list the university in his credentials, which he clearly presents during his talks. Whether or not he composes or gives the talks on the university's time, they'd be seen as endorsing him.

[Glendon Mellow]

Kevin, I certainly wouldn't be lining up to see one of those talks. However, Gaskell does say at the bottom of his handout page: "These notes are based on public talks I have given at a number of universities. These notes are updated from time to time." From that I infer that "public" talks means they were not part of any curriculum.

A university professor listing credentials doesn't necessarily imply endorsement of whatever they do outside the classroom. Even for a public talk held at a university. Indeed, universities hold talks by people they disagree with and say so.