Print 60 comment(s) - last by ltgrunt.. on Jan 25 at 10:10 AM

C. Martin Gaskell, a Ph.D astronomer has a keen interest in music. But reports of his keen interest in disproving evolution were grossly exaggerated.  (Source: In Color: Nebraska)
Apparently the published information on Dr. Gaskell's viewpoints is very misleading


Whenever we do a story -- particularly a controversial one -- we always try to get as many voices and perspectives as possible.  Yesterday we wrote on the story of C. Martin Gaskell, a Ph.D astronomer who sued after being passed over for promotion and accused of being a creationist.  He had just secured an out-of-court victory -- a small settlement from the University of Kentucky, the university that passed him over.

A blog from the organization responsible for the prestigious peer reviewed journal Nature attempts to sum up the story, writing:

Should the University of Kentucky have hired a qualified astronomer to lead their new observatory, despite his strong religious views and his public doubts about evolution? Or was their decision to pass him over discrimination?

Many other publications published similar accounts.  There was only one problem -- Dr. Gaskell is a firm believer in evolution and to say he has "public doubts" about it, is stretching reality.  For our readers who were hoping him to be the great scientific savior for creationists, sorry to disappoint -- Dr. Gaskell is a religious man, but he doesn't abandon logic.

We were fortunate enough to interview him about his beliefs and the experience he went through, being accused of believing in intelligent design or creationism by the University of Kentucky staff, who clearly misunderstood his viewpoint.

The Interview:

Jason Mick, Senior News Editor, DailyTech:
When I first wrote my article, I was primarily referencing the settlement document, the university press release, and some additional items referenced by the Nature article on your lawsuit's outcome. All of these made it sound like your viewpoint was creationism (or left ambiguity to what exactly it was).

C. Martin Gaskell, Ph.D, University of Texas Astronomy Department:
I'm afraid that the University of Kentucky has been putting out a number of false or misleading things! I complained to their spokesman about this but didn't get any response.
The ACLJ press release is at:" rel="nofollow

[Note: American Center for Law and Justice is a legal advocacy similar to the ACLU, which supported Dr. Gaskell in his case.]

You believe in an old earth (in line with current scientific consensus) right?

Dr. Gaskell:
Yes. Very much so.

How do you believe life originated?

Dr. Gaskell:
I don't work in this area and those who do have wildly divergent opinions.

From your perspective, could life have originated from abiogenesis, [perhaps by divine intervention]?

Dr. Gaskell:
That's a very reasonable description, but some people who work in the area thing that that is difficult so they postulate that life came from space.

[Note: Abiogenesis is the theory that life originated on earth from naturally occurring non-living building blocks, such as amino acids and ribonucleic acids.]

When you say that there are problems with evolutionary theory, but that creationists' theories are poorly formed, did you mean that you think the current consensus on evolution is wrong?

Dr. Gaskell:

[Note: I'm referring to a quote from the professor included in our prior piece, linked above, pointing out that evolutionary theory has "significant" unanswered issues.]

Or [did you mean] merely that certain aspects of it (e.g. natural selection v. cataclysmic events/random drift) aren't fully understood at this time, due to lack of direct observation?

Dr. Gaskell:
Right. The debate over neutral evolution, for example, something that is has been a topic of heated in the field. The wide range of views on the origin of life is another example.

What are your thoughts on the paradox between public universities needing to teach scientific fact and the fact that they receive government funding and thus are likely not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs, which may contradict scientific fact (e.g. believers in the young earth premise)? (And I mean this in the sense that this debate could come up for a biology faculty position, in which your beliefs might actually affect what you are teaching.)

Dr. Gaskell:
This HAS come up multiple times with biology positions. There is a good book covering this in great detail. It is called "Slaughter of the Dissidents" by Jerry Bergman. I'd highly recommend getting a copy to understand what goes on. The recurrent problem you'll find if you look at the cases documented in the book is that Christian biologists get fired or demoted not because of what they actually teach or do in their research, but because of who they are.

This is a major problem in the life sciences. One recent major survey showed that 51% of scientists in the life sciences believe in some sort of "higher power" (which most of them identify as "God"). Half of all scientists also claim a religious affiliation. There is an enormous problem if one disqualifies one half of biologists because of religious
affiliation or beliefs!

My brother-in-law, Richard Norris, is a famous geologist at UCSD. He is not a Christian. He takes his evolution class to the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego. All hell would break loose if I did that! Interestingly the most famous astronomer at the University of Kentucky, Gary Ferland, has invited a young-earth creationist to give a lecture to his introductory astronomy class. I would never dare do that (I wouldn't want to anyhow).

Teachers are not required to personally believe what they teach. Bergman makes a very good point that probably the majority of religious studies courses at state universities are taught by non-believers. Nobody in the administration at such universities thinks there is anything wrong with a non-Christian teaching New Testament studies yet they would object to a highly-qualified biologist teaching a biology class because he or she is a Christian!

(Unlike your case in which your evolutionary views are outside your field of work.)

Dr. Gaskell:
The University of Kentucky made various mistakes. One was in not troubling to find out what my actual views were, and then the second mistake was using their perceived views, that even if true, were unrelated to the job in hand, and taking them into account as a factor as a factor in the hiring decision.


Well, we're glad we DID take the time to find out what Dr. Gaskell's actual views are.  After all, they are more interesting than the garbled version that's floating around on many outlets.

We would like to thank Dr. Gaskell for taking the time to share his views with our readers and answer our questions.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Are you TRYING to piss off people?
By ShaolinSoccer on 1/22/2011 10:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
"For our readers who were hoping him to be the great scientific savior for creationists, sorry to disappoint"

Why do you even put comments like this in your articles? It's like you got some sort of personal vendetta against religious people? Did someone religious treat you like crap and now you have to go out of your way to do the same to people you don't even know?

RE: Are you TRYING to piss off people?
By AssBall on 1/22/2011 11:45:03 AM , Rating: 2
There is no science in creationist thought. That is pretty much what He was saying. Why are you so knee-jerk defensive that you take the bait and then go on to project further?

RE: Are you TRYING to piss off people?
By SandmanWN on 1/22/2011 11:49:30 AM , Rating: 2
WTF does any of this have to do with TECH? This site has marginalized itself to the ridiculous.

By Chaser on 1/23/2011 2:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
It's one thing to post information about technology, -in particular consumer related devices- announcements, emerging developments that could impact many, etc. But this site now, far too often with this poster, has become a vehicle for his controversial personal political views: religion, selective global warming excerpts, more. I'm very disappointed. I can no longer recommend this column to my coleagues and co-workers.

RE: Are you TRYING to piss off people?
By eskimospy on 1/23/2011 3:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
As usual, from the FAQ:

Q: What is Dailytech?

A: DailyTech is the leading source of news, research and discussion for current and upcoming issues concerning science and technology.

By SandmanWN on 1/24/2011 12:10:15 AM , Rating: 2
Seems like that FAQ has been edited a number of times over the years. Might as well name it the DailyBS.

By frozentundra123456 on 1/22/2011 11:54:12 AM , Rating: 2
A little strongly stated perhaps, but basically I would agree with you.
Mick does seem to have a strong bias against or misconception about religious people. Perhaps he equates all Christians with the extremely conservative ones who believe in the young earth or whatever. I grew up in a very conservative church, and disagree with a lot of their rules and regulations, but I never once heard it preached that the earth was only 5000 years old.
And again, early in the article he makes a statement which basically says religious people cannot be logical. He backs away from this after some of the comments, but basically I believe this is his basic core belief. Personally, I think you can separate the two and be "logical" in your daily life and still have faith in a higher power.
I do appreciate the fact that Mick intervied the PhD personally, but I think he (Mick) is strongly biased against religious people and that this bias still shows up in the article.

"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki