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

Scientists = Just dumb people like us
By p05esto on 1/22/2011 2:38:44 PM , Rating: 0
I was watching a very pro-evolution documentary on the universe the other day. They mentioned that mankind has never found anything that doesn't rust/die/decay/fall apart/get worse over time. They applied that to the solor system and wondered if it would all end in time. I thought that was a funny point for evolutionists who thing something came from nothing and that a piece of dust would magically turn into a human eyeball or something. They contridict themselves constantly, nothing can build itself or get better over time - everything we know falls apart, just the opposite reality of evolution. Creation is the only plausible reality.

I could shake a box of computer parts for 10 trillion years and it would NEVER turn into a working computer. Yet some people think some dirt in a box will turn into a hand, eyeball or monkey? Talk about illogical reasoning. Scientists are NO smarter than you or otherwords, we know very little, but a spec of dust when looking from an airplane, let alone from the moon or Mars.

By Solandri on 1/22/2011 3:08:28 PM , Rating: 3
Note: I believe in God.
I was watching a very pro-evolution documentary on the universe the other day. They mentioned that mankind has never found anything that doesn't rust/die/decay/fall apart/get worse over time. They applied that to the solor system and wondered if it would all end in time. I thought that was a funny point for evolutionists who thing something came from nothing and that a piece of dust would magically turn into a human eyeball or something.

It's not a contradiction. The second law of thermodynamics (that things go from an ordered system to a disordered system) applies to a closed system. In the case of our solar system, the closed system includes the sun. The energy we get from the sun can lead to greater order here on earth. The entropy (disorder) of the overall system increases though because the increase in disorder in the sun is greater than the increase in order on earth.

A good analogy is debris on the highway. Nobody is actively trying to sweep the debris to the side of the road, but that is where most of it ends up. Why? Because when cars run over debris in the middle of the road, it kicks it up. Some of it ends up back in the middle of the road, some of it ends up on the side of the road. The debris on the side of the road is never kicked up though, so it remains there. Over time, nearly all the debris ends up at the side of the road even though nobody driving down the road was trying to push the debris there. (In this case, the increased entropy happens in the gasoline burned in the cars' engines.)

There are some weaknesses with evolutionary theory which crop up if you study it and genetic algorithms. I won't get into them - if you read up on Dr. Gaskell's work, you'll see some of them. But the second law of thermodynamics is not one of them.

By frozentundra123456 on 1/22/2011 3:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
You have a valid point that the disorder in a system tends to increase over time.

However, the complete equation for free energy in a system also includes a term for energy as well as order, so if you have enough energy you can force more order into the system.

Also, you are oversimplifing the theory of evolution greatly. I dont think anyone says complex life appeared instantly out of a primordal ooze. You have to consider the natural selection over time as mutations occur that favor one form of life over another.

If you read my other posts, you can see that I am not a strong advocate of the theory of evolution as the only thing that can explain the origin of life, but you are mis-stating the theory very badly.

RE: Scientists = Just dumb people like us
By Divide Overflow on 1/23/2011 4:22:05 AM , Rating: 2
It's amusing to see some jump to such extremes to "prove" evolution incorrect. Matter changes from one state to another over time. Sometimes that change is beneficial, often times it is not.

I've never found an evolutionist to claim that something came from nothing. This is quite the opposite of their claim: that small, tiny changes occur over time.

Creationist demand that logic, reason and doubt are expressly forbidden from their view. Creationism must be taken on faith.

Scientists demand that doubt and logic be applied to test their hypothesis and form a better understanding of our world.

RE: Scientists = Just dumb people like us
By Zoridon on 1/24/11, Rating: -1
"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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