Scientist says division of science and faith an illusion

[Katabole]

I saw this article a couple of days ago. Reminded me of watching the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.



A Christian astronomer who sued the University of Kentucky for religious discrimination says the perceived divide between faith and science is an "illusion."

Martin Gaskell claimed he lost out on a top science job because of his professed faith and statements he made that were taken to be critical of evolution. The controversy fueled the long-running debate between scientists and Christians who believe the Bible refutes some scientific discoveries.

Gaskell said the two sides can find agreement. He has, as a devout Christian who uses the tools of science to study the universe.

"That's one of the things that people like myself really want to counter: is this idea of some sort of incompatibility between religion and science," Gaskell told The Associated Press.

The university reached a $125,000 settlement with Gaskell last month in exchange for dropping the civil action. He said professors who discussed his employment misunderstood his faith and his views on evolution in interoffice emails that later became court evidence.

Gaskell, who studies supermassive black holes at the University of Texas in Austin, said he considers himself a "theistic evolutionist": a Christian who accepts Darwin's theory along with evidence that the earth is billions of years old.

"We believe that God has done things through the mechanisms he's revealing to us through science," he said. He has also written that evolution theory has "significant scientific problems" and includes "unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations."

Gaskell said scientists shouldn't be discouraged or rejected for holding nonmainstream views.

"The question some people ask me is, 'If I were a biologist, and if I did have major doubts about the theory of evolution, would that disqualify me from being a biologist?'" he said. "And I'd firmly say, 'No ...'"

But some prominent scientists disagree with Gaskell on that point.

"You can't discriminate based upon religion," said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, a science advocacy group in Oakland, California. "You can discriminate based upon scientific views. It's perfectly legitimate to discriminate against a candidate based on whether that candidate's scientific views are acceptable to the discipline."

Bestselling atheist author and biologist Richard Dawkins recently wrote about the Gaskell case, suggesting that a scientist's religious beliefs should not be exempt from scrutiny.

"Even if a doctor's belief in the stork theory of reproduction is technically irrelevant to his competence as an eye surgeon, it tells you something about him," Dawkins wrote. "It is revealing. It is relevant in a general way to whether we would wish him to treat us or teach us."

Gaskell, 57, attends church weekly and was reared in a churchgoing family in England. He came to the United States as a college student when he received a scholarship to the University of California, Santa Cruz.

He brought impeccable credentials to Lexington in 2007 when he applied to become director of the University of Kentucky's new student planetarium.

Gaskell said he grew suspicious during the interview when he was asked about a lecture he gave that explored Christianity and science. A few months later, Gaskell learned from a colleague that he did not get the job, and he was told that scientists in a separate department, biology, had been consulted.

In one email from court records, a biology professor said he believed Gaskell's "public premise is to provide as much intertwining between science and religion as possible, and this will most certainly lead to misconceptions about scientific evidence."

Scott, who taught at the University of Kentucky in the 1970s, said Kentucky scientists were likely "really, really sensitive" about the university's image as the newly opened Creation Museum was attracting national attention to Kentucky by asserting the earth was 6,000 years old.

A member of the search committee worried that "creationists in the state would be eager to latch on to" Gaskell's hiring.

Gaskell said he never felt apprehensive about suing the school.

"If it had been a more borderline case, if the evidence had not been so clear, then I would have (hesitated)," he said. "But it was so clear right from the start."

The $125,000 settlement was based on lost income, and the amount is what Gaskell would have received if he had gone to trial and won the case, he said.

Gaskell said since the case ended he has received about 400 emails with words of encouragement ranging from atheists to soldiers and other Christians who work in the sciences.

He said he wants to work to encourage more Christians to enter the sciences.

"One thing I feel really strongly about that we need to convey to students that the scientific questions are not all settled," he said. "If all scientific questions were settled I think science would be rather dull, because what I like doing is research and solving unsolved problems."

Copyright © 2011 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadi ... Id=5934692

[jlay]

"Even if a doctor's belief in the stork theory of reproduction is technically irrelevant to his competence as an eye surgeon, it tells you something about him," Dawkins wrote. "It is revealing. It is relevant in a general way to whether we would wish him to treat us or teach us."

This is the kind of stuff that frustrates me to no end. Comparing Christian faith to storks delivering babies. And the sad part is this is becoming accepted. You can discriminate against people of faith, and make ridiculous assertions like Dawkins does here.

Even non-believing scientists have said very critical things about Darwinian evolution. But a beleiver says it, and suddenly it is disqualified. That is fallacious reasoning.

[Maytan]

Very interesting article, thanks for pointing it out.

[MarcusOfLycia]

The bit with Dawkin's made me laugh. I can't take what he says seriously anymore because of stuff like that. "We disagree on something? That's fine, as long as you realize that you are a moron and I'm an intellectual." Makes you wonder what his personal life/friendships are like.

[Maytan]

Dawkins, like many atheists (or more correctly in this case, anti-theists) hold to the position that it has been proven God doesn't exist. Thus, they claim they have no reason to respect a disagreement. In their eyes it's not just a disagreement of opinion/choice, but a factual error on the theist's part.

I do wonder what Dawkins is like on a personal level. However, I wonder that about many people.. hehe.