Scientists ‘potentially skeptical’ of evolution need not apply

By Sean Pitman

Ever wonder why creationists do not often publish in mainstream scientific journals or get top-level jobs within the scientific community? Consider who is in control of these journals and these jobs and their religious zeal to uphold their own perspective and agenda under the protection of civil law… even when it comes to those who actually believe in evolution but might question or put doubts in people’s minds as to the validity of some aspect of the mainstream perspective on origins.

In this light consider also the challenge to the SDA Church from those within who openly attack the Church’s position on origins on the Church’s dime. Fewer and fewer options are available these days for those who question Darwinism or wish their children to be exposed to these questions, or even for those who want to expose their children to those who are truly supportive of the Church’s position on origins within our own schools:

An astronomer argues that his Christian faith and his peers’ belief that he is an evolution skeptic kept him from getting a prestigious job as the director of a new student observatory at the University of Kentucky.

Martin Gaskell quickly rose to the top of a list of applicants being considered by the university’s search committee. One member said he was “breathtakingly above the other applicants.”

Others openly worried his Christian faith could conflict with his duties as a scientist, calling him “something close to a creationist” and “potentially evangelical.”

Even though Gaskell says he is not a creationist, he claims he was passed over for the job at UK’s MacAdam Student Observatory three years ago because of his religion and statements that were perceived to be critical of the theory of evolution.

Gaskell has sued the university, claiming lost income and emotional distress. Last month a judge rejected a motion from the university and allowed it to go to trial Feb. 8.

“There is no dispute that based on his application, Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position,” U.S. District Judge Karl S. Forester wrote in the ruling. (Read More)

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn1Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

15 thoughts on “Scientists ‘potentially skeptical’ of evolution need not apply

  1. In this case the atheists are branching out of their home church and home funded institutions into the public school system trying to coopt the whole thing as part of their church.

    But imagine a more applicable scenario — for example atheist churches get together and build THEIR OWN “Atheist university of Tenn” hiring someone to come on board and teach creationism in their science classes. Totally absurd!

    If atheist evolutionist devotees are so clear on their religious obligation to silence heretics who might even hint about questioning their belief in evolutionism – then why cannot Christians at least be clear on not paying someone to come into their own funded institutions promoting as evangelists for evolutionism.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  2. It is becoming a liability to be known as a Christian. Just look at the hate from groups in our society who don’t like Christian’s Biblical and moral stance against their attempts to legalize immorality. It will get worse. Soon only those who truly are willing to take up their cross and walk with our Lord will be willing to own His name. Those who are not fully converted, or who follow half-heartedly or for personal gain will leave us. The pressure on them will get too tough. Good riddance to them. While that will be a time of great hardship, it will also be a time of great spiritual awakening for true seekers. It’s coming friends, are you getting ready?




    0
    View Comment
  3. Re D’s Quote

    “Good riddance to them.”

    I’m sure I’m likely in this group and no doubt deserved of your sanction. Notwithstanding, I was sad to see your comment.

    From my youth comes my recall of the poignant story about Christ healing the lepers. I don’t know what their denomination was but it strikes me that Christ was not concerned about that.

    I hope the wonderful spirit of Christmas can fill you with joy this year.

    your agnostic friend
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  4. Re Quote from article on Gaskel

    “Gaskell said he is not a “creationist” and his views on evolution are in line with other biological scientists. In his lecture notes, Gaskell also distances himself from Christians who believe the earth is a few thousand years old, saying their assertions are based on “mostly very poor science.”

    Kudos to Sean for posting this. A man should not be barred from a scientific post because of his faith if he does not allow his faith to bias his science. Hopefully the law will rectify what appears to be a miscarriage of justice in banning Dr. Gaskell from the position.

    Bob, it is important to note, that Dr. Gaskel, although not a creationist, does have issues with evolution. Nothing wrong with that, I have questions myself.

    Regards
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  5. Ken, I hope with all of my heart that ALL men will seek God and surrender to His will and live holy lives that honor God and serve our fellow men. Unfortunately there are people that are not interested in surrender or holy living in the church and they drag down the rest. That is why I said good riddance. It is past time for the church to move on from playing church and get on with the work that God gave us, service to Him and man.

    You are right that Jesus was not concerned about offering salvation to one denomination only. His offer of freedom from sin applies to all people. I invite you Ken to accept His offer.

    As for what group you fit into, only you and God know that. I would not presume to make that judgement. I hope you see your need for a savior, a need to walk in newness of life, and a need to serve fellow men. You are as welcome as everyone else.

    Merry Christmas Ken!




    0
    View Comment
  6. I do not know all the details, but I do think that the University is handling this situation quite badly. In the actual news article itself drom the Hufington post, some scientists are quoted as saying that they may as well have a “Creation Museum” with him around… Logical Fallacy: “Slippery Slope.”




    0
    View Comment
  7. @ D. Fender

    Just look at the hate from groups in our society who don’t like Christian’s Biblical and moral stance against their attempts to legalize immorality.

    My understanding is that SDAs, including Ellen White, were always opposed to the legislation of morality. When did we change our position?

    And is it “hate” on our part when we say “good riddance to them?”




    0
    View Comment
  8. Bob, it is important to note, that Dr. Gaskel, although not a creationist, does have issues with evolution. Nothing wrong with that, I have questions myself.

    Well apparently when atheist evolutionists of that sort branch out of their own religious institutions and hijack public education (using our tax dollars to do it) they will not stand for any “questions” regarding their mainline dogma on the subject of evolutionism – not even by fellow evolutionists that might have Christian leanings.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  9. krissmith777 says:
    December 21, 2010 I do not know all the details, but I do think that the University is handling this situation quite badly. In the actual news article itself drom the Hufington post, some scientists are quoted as saying that they may as well have a “Creation Museum” with him around

    Sounds like Salem-Witch-hunt material when it is placed in the public school system.

    What are we missing?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  10. Of course I freely admit that I could be mistaking the Salem situation with the dark-ages ID extreme censorship model of Dover.

    Sometimes it is difficult to tell the two apart.




    0
    View Comment
  11. I believe to Jesus, it will probably be “sad riddance to them.” Whether or not we want to accept them as brothers, He apparently has no such aversion.




    0
    View Comment
  12. @Professor Kent:

    For you to say my use of the phrase “good riddance to them”, is hate, you have to know my motives and judge those motives. That is God’s work. I don’t hate those that are not committed to the church and tear it down, I just want them to get on the right team, the team that they actively promote in their life.

    As for if SDA’s should support legislation of morality. Jesus said we are to be the salt of the earth. That infers that we provide flavor and are not a neutral seasoning. Consider the following and decide if we should vote for or against it.

    Murder – should we vote that it is immoral and for punishment for murderers?
    Divorce – in the interest of children and intact families, should oppose divorce?
    Lying or perjury – should we support laws that oppose lying?
    Stealing – should we support legislation that opposes theft and punishes thieves?

    If we don’t “season” our society in a positive way, and allow immorality to run unchecked, are we not partially responsible for the bad outcome because of our lack of action?




    0
    View Comment
  13. I think we should always treat evolutionists with the utmost courtesy and respect, even though we disagree with them. Jesus always treated his flawed friends with courtesy and respect, in contrast with puritanical zealots around him who eagerly criticized them for their sinfulness. Thank you, Ken, for demonstrating the love of Jesus.

    In the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
    Fred




    0
    View Comment
  14. D. Fender,

    As Christians, we should join the support of others, including the non-religious, who also advocate for laws to protect against those who harm others through murder, divorce, lying or perjury, and stealing. Many see these as basic human rights issues. I’m not going to engage in moral equivalency, so I am going no further.

    Yet Jesus deliberately associated with those who committed these very sins. Good riddance when we are free them? Jesus didn’t think so. And I’m especially grateful that he has never urged good riddance upon me. I, too, am a heinous sinner.




    0
    View Comment
  15. @Professor Kent:

    The SDA Church and Ellen White strongly objected to legislation enforcing the first four Commandments, but was strongly in favor of civil legislation that enforced the last six. Not everyone in the church subscribes to this standard (what does everyone in the church subscribe to?) but this standard is the basis for the church advoated Temperance laws in the 1800’s.

    Brian




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.