Jump to content


Photo

Dr.gaskell Passed Over For Job Because He's A Christian.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
8 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 21 December 2010 - 11:40 PM

Because Dr. Gaskell dared to speak out against evolution, he was passed for a job he was more than qualified for.


No one denies that astronomer Martin Gaskell was the leading candidate for the founding director of a new observatory at the University of Kentucky in 2007 — until his writings on evolution came to light.

Gaskell had given lectures to campus religious groups around the country in which he said that while he has no problem reconciling the Bible with the theory of evolution, he believes the theory has major flaws. And he recommended students read theory critics in the intelligent-design movement.

That stance alarmed UK science professors and, the university acknowledges, played a role in the job going to another candidate.

Now a federal judge says Gaskell has a right to a jury trial over his allegation that he lost the job because he is a Christian and “potentially evangelical.”


“The record contains substantial evidence that Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position until the issue of his religion or his scientific position became an issue,” U.S. Senior District Judge Karl S. Forester of the Eastern District of Kentucky wrote late last month in rejecting the university’s motion for summary judgment, which would have dismissed the case.

Forester has set a trial date of Feb. 8 on Gaskell’s claims the university violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s ban on job bias on the basis of religion.

UK, in a legal brief, acknowledged that concerns over Gaskell’s views on evolution played a role in the decision to chose another candidate. But it argued that this was a valid scientific concern, and that there were other factors, including a poor review from a previous supervisor and UK faculty views that he was a poor listener.

In its brief, UK said professors worried about Gaskell’s “casual blending of religion and science” and feared the then-planned MacAdam Student Observatory’s “true mission … would be thwarted by controversy that has nothing to do with astronomy.”

Gaskell’s lawsuit, however, argues UK officials repeatedly referred to his religion in their discussions and e-mails. And he argues that UK mistook him for a creationist — someone who believes the Bible disproves the theory of evolution.
Reference: http://www.uncommond...-latest-victim/


http://www.courier-j...D=2010312110011

Here is examples of how evolutionists are going to treat this:
http://forums.randi....ad.php?t=195237

Blogs are doing damage control:
http://scienceblogs....not_expelle.php

Problem is, a Federal Court has already said there is enough evidence to sue for the reasons Dr. Gaskell claims. Something not mentioned in the evolutionist cover up.

ACLJ takes on the case. Funny how the ACLU does not. But of course they are anti Christian as well.

http://www.aclj.org/...ad.aspx?ID=4020 Dec 10, 2010.
http://www.aclj.org/...ad.aspx?ID=4033 Dec 17, 2010.
http://www.aclj.org/...ad.aspx?ID=4036 Dec 18, 2010.

Preparing case to go to court:
http://www.aclj.org/...ad.aspx?ID=1031 Dec 22, 2010.

The following was noted by a judge while clearing the way for the trial to proceed (taken from above link):

* The record contains “substantial evidence that Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position until the issue of his religion” became part of the search committee’s deliberations.

    * The head of the search committee wrote in an email to the Chair of the Physics & Astronomy Department that “no objective observer could possibly believe that we excluded Martin [Gaskell] on any basis other than religious . . .”

    * The Department Chair admitted “that the debate generated by Gaskell’s website and his religious beliefs was an ‘element’ in the decision not to hire Gaskell.”

    * One member of the search committee admitted that Gaskell’s “views of religious things” were “a factor” in his decision not to support Gaskell’s candidacy.

    * Another member of the committee, having discovered Gaskell’s website, warned fellow committee members that Gaskell was “potentially evangelical.”

    * The search committee head, anticipating a decision against Gaskell by his fellow committee members, wrote that “Other reasons will be given for the choice . . . but the real reason we will not offer him the job is because of his religious beliefs in matters that are unrelated to astronomy or to any of the other duties specified for this position.”


Let's see how many evolutionists sites will omit all this and try and make Dr. Gaskell out to be a retard.

Let's take some comments from Randi's forum.

1) He didn't lose a job, he didn't get one. Because he's a nutbar.

2) If this gets to court it should be laughed out. The man isn't complaining about discrimination, he's obviously whining because he believes wanting something creates in others an obligation to give him that thing.

3) If he's capable of teaching it properly, not necessarily (though if it were me I'd rather hire someone with a more consistent view of things). However, I've met VERY few people who go against the scientific mainstream and who are capable of teaching their fields properly.

4) You're being alarmist. This isn't about what the teacher is or is not allowed to say, it's about whether or not the professor (there's a difference) can properly teach his subject or not. If he can't, he shouldn't be hired, period.

5) No one should be getting a job in any field of science IF they are, in that field, working to reconcile real science with their belief system. If your nut theories are not in your field of qualification cool - go wild. If they are in your degreed field, you have no business having any job or position of authority in that field.

6) Gaskell's faith did not cost him his job, as he never had the job in the first place. Unless the people doing the hiring were utter nutters, they likely based their decision to hire someone else on that other person's curriculum vitae and presentation during an interview, and not on Gaskell's improvable beliefs. HOWEVER, common sense would dictate that if you are applying for a prestigious job, you first 'sanitize' your on-line presence, focussing on any posts that feature your real name. Save the holy-rolling for the anonymous websites.

7) What part of "religious nutter" do you not understand?

8) How about a doctor who believes in witchcraft or a devout Jehovah's Witness?

9) Or an astronomer who thinks the Universe is 6,000 years old?

10) Paper qualification don't mean squat when it comes to people management and leadership. Its the whole package that counts, not just the C.V.

11) I am willing to be persuaded otherwise but I at the moment think it is absolutely fine for a religious person to be discriminated against for a scientific position.

12) Did you notice this isn't the 17th Century?

13) Well, today we expect people to have a grasp of reality in that kind of job. Having to check in with an imaginary friend before going to bed doesn't demonstrate that very well.

14) How can you have a grasp of reality and think the Universe is 6,000 years old?

15) I think the person who needs to separate their 'faith' and their job is the employee here, not the employer. By what grounds is this a one way street?

16) Okay, pick a date when this guy thinks the Great Sky Fairy made the Universe. I'm okay with 6,000-14,500,000,000. It still comes down to him believing his imaginary friend created the whole thing.

http://forums.randi....ad.php?t=195237


Basically all the posts are saying that YECs are sub-human mentally ill people for not conforming with the views of evolution.


Evolution: Conformism, humanism, and naturalism at it's best.

#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 December 2010 - 05:15 AM

And somehow, anyone is shocked by this?

#3 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 22 December 2010 - 06:50 AM

In the posts you quoted it appears that they are assuming that he is a YEC when all he did was say that evolutionary theory has flaws.

#4 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 December 2010 - 08:05 AM

In the posts you quoted it appears that they are assuming that he is a YEC when all he did was say that evolutionary theory has flaws.

View Post


I don't think it really matters; all he really has to do is seriously question macro-evolution, and down the drain he goes! :mellow:

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 December 2010 - 08:58 AM

In the posts you quoted it appears that they are assuming that he is a YEC when all he did was say that evolutionary theory has flaws.

View Post


Once you speak out against evolution, you are repackaged (stereotyped) into the class of people that is considered the most retarded by the scientific community. This way the damage to your reputation starts before they even attack it.

#6 dmwessel

dmwessel

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 05 February 2011 - 12:35 PM

Actually Dr. Gasgell is not right, Biblically speaking:


Adam/man (ruddy) was created from the 'dust (powder, mortar, earth, mud)' of the 'ground (earth, mortar, powder, mud)' during a time when the earth was 'hot' (Gen. 2:4 - day = 'to be hot').

Evolution teaches that life began in the primordial soup (hot mud)!


Adam/man = soul (Gen. 2:7) = the 'animal' sentiment principle 'only'.

If Adam was only an 'animal' - what animal was it?

We know we are 'mammal' but where did we get that from?

We have 97% Chimpanzee DNA and remnants of a tail bone.

There can only be one explanation - the animal/mammal 'ruddy' was a monkey.

As to when and how ruddy gained a 'higher consciousness', which enabled it to change is in Gen. 2:8.

#7 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 19 February 2011 - 11:55 PM

Actually Dr. Gasgell is not right, Biblically speaking:
Adam/man (ruddy) was created from the 'dust (powder, mortar, earth, mud)' of the 'ground (earth, mortar, powder, mud)' during a time when the earth was 'hot' (Gen. 2:4 - day = 'to be hot').

Evolution teaches that life began in the primordial soup (hot mud)!
Adam/man = soul (Gen. 2:7) = the 'animal' sentiment principle 'only'.

If Adam was only an 'animal' - what animal was it?

We know we are 'mammal' but where did we get that from?

We have 97% Chimpanzee DNA and remnants of a tail bone.

There can only be one explanation - the animal/mammal 'ruddy' was a monkey.

As to when and how ruddy gained a 'higher consciousness', which enabled it to change is in Gen. 2:8.

View Post

I know that he is banned, but I can't hold it in anymore. All of his posts are some of the most absurd posts I have ever read on any forum, and I've been on a lot of forums.

#8 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 February 2011 - 05:33 AM

I know that he is banned, but I can't hold it in anymore. All of his posts are some of the most absurd posts I have ever read on any forum, and I've been on a lot of forums.

View Post


And that is why he's gone.
1- He couldn't adhere to forum rules
2- He continually equivocated when pressed to give evidences for his accusations
3- He constantly misrepresented many things and people
4- He attacked the person instead of the assertion
5- he was basically a troll

These people come here all the time (mostly from other forums, to which they return and boast about what their doing). They're mainly here to cause chaos and such.

#9 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 21 February 2011 - 09:22 AM

I know that he is banned, but I can't hold it in anymore. All of his posts are some of the most absurd posts I have ever read on any forum, and I've been on a lot of forums.

View Post

The one you quoted takes the cake doesn't it? Yeah, I would have to say that the "cases of misrepresentation" couldn't be more clear.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users