Christian Astronomer Claims Religious Discrimination in Job Rejection
- Posted on December 17, 2010 at 7:04am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — 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.
Gaskell later learned that professors had discussed his purported religious views during the search process. Gaskell told the AP in an e-mail that he didn’t grow frustrated, but felt “one should not allow universities to get away with religious discrimination.”
University scientists wondered to each other in internal e-mails if Gaskell’s faith would interfere with the job, which included public outreach, according to court records.
The topic became so heated behind the scenes that even university biologists, who believed Gaskell was a critic of evolution, weighed in by citing a controversial Bible-based museum in Kentucky that had just opened.
“We might as well have the Creation Museum set up an outreach office in biology,” biology professor James Krupa wrote to a colleague in an October 2007 e-mail. The museum was making national headlines at the time for exhibits that assert the literal truth of the Bible’s creation story.
Science professors cited a lecture Gaskell has given called “Modern Astronomy, the Bible and Creation,“ which he developed for ”Christians and others interested in Bible and science questions…,” according to an outline of the lecture. Gaskell told the AP he was invited to give the lecture at UK in 1997, and organizers had read his notes.
The wide-ranging lecture outlines historical scientific figures who discuss God and interpretations of the creation story in the biblical chapter Genesis. Also in the notes, Gaskell mentions evolution, saying the theory has “significant scientific problems” and includes “unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations,” according to court records.
Gaskell was briefly asked about the lecture during his job interview in 2007 with the chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michael Cavagnero, according to Gaskell’s deposition. Gaskell said he felt that questions related to religion during the job interview were “inappropriate.”
“I think that if I had a document like this and I was advocating atheism … I don’t think it would be an issue,” he said of his lecture.
Science professors also expressed concern that hiring Gaskell would damage the university’s image.
An astrophysics professor, Moshe Elitzur, told Cavagnero that the hire would be a “huge public relations mistake,” according to an e-mail from Cavagnero in court records.
“Moshe predicts that he would not be here one month before the (Lexington) Herald-Leader headline would read: ‘UK hires creationist to direct new student observatory.’”
University spokesman Jay Blanton declined to comment Monday because the litigation is pending.
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.”
Gaskell’s lawsuit is indicative of an increasingly tense debate between religion and science on college campuses and elsewhere, said Steven K. Green, a law professor and director of the Center for Religion, Law & Democracy at Willamette University in Salem, Ore.
“I think it reflects a phenomenon that the sides in this debate are becoming more encamped, they’re hunkering down,” Green said. “Because certainly within the biology community and within the science community generally, they see the increasing attacks creationists are making as very threatening to their existence — and vice versa, to a certain extent.”
Gaskell was uniquely qualified for the new position at the University of Kentucky, according to court records, because he oversaw the design and construction of an observatory at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He also advised UK during the building of the MacAdam facility. He currently teaches at the University of Texas.
His attorney, Frank Manion, said scientists at UK were too quick to place Gaskell on one side of the creation-evolution debate.
“Unfortunately too many people get hung up on the idea that you have to be one extreme or the other,” said Manion, who works for American Center for Law & Justice, which focuses on religious freedom cases. They say “you can’t be a religious believer and somebody who accepts evolution, which is clearly not true. And Gaskell’s a perfect example of that.”
___
Online:
UK MacAdam Student Observatory: http://bit.ly/gKvvkB
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 672 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 527 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 391 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 369 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 327 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 262 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 271 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 127 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 262 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (239)
warner
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:42amYou’re either with God or Darwin? Mr. Gaskel…making the statement that you’re not a creationist makes it clear that you are not a Christian. You can’t have it both ways? Christ said we would be persecuted for our faith. I would rather lose a job position standing on Christ promises and my beliefs than turn my back on my Creator. Don’t be a hypocrite – and state your Christian when you don’t believe in how God created the Heavens and the Earth. It’s called FAITH!
Report Post »Soquel by the Creek
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:03amWarner,
I don’t remember hearing that belief in the literal creation story from Genesis is a litmus test for accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. I am a Christian and an engineer, actively working in science. I see the fingerprints of God everywhere in science. I do not believe in the literal Genesis Creation story but I do believe that God directs the universe and its laws. Both religion and science both attempt to attain the truth. Unfortunately, there are some in both religion and science that refuse to accept anything outside of official dogma, regardless of evidence.
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:28amI know this will set Warner off…
but i agree with SOQUEL….myself also being a theoretical physicist and involved in science and seeing God’s hand in every aspect of the universe.
even the Catholic Church has come around to the idea that religion and science are both looking for the same thing, evidence. they are both trying to prove how the universe was, is, and will be. there are 1000′s of scientists inside the Vatican that are conservative Christians and believe the Bible 100% but they spend every moment of every day testing scientifically if what the Bible says is true… they have yet to find a flaw…science and religion are the same…only when you go to one extrreme or the other do you get in trouble…
Warner…come back from the edge….I believe God’s Word and I believe in His Wisdom and the part of it that He has granted to me through my intellect, wisdom, skill, and inquisitive nature. I believe because I have witnessed and felt His hand many times and I have yet to find one instance of my belief in Jesus contradicting any formula, Law of Nature, and theory in Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, or Sociology.
Report Post »warner
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:50amI appreciate your comments but it would seem from reading your comments that you want to pick which parts of the bible you want to believe in! That is your right… I disagree with you and find that most people that cherry pick from the Bible are only attempting to validate their “Own” misinterpretation. VRW: You won’t set me off…for I am very secure in my faith and I know what and in whom I beleive in! You guys have a good day… and thanks for your comments.
Report Post »Republic Under God
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 2:11pmWell, the Hebrew word used to represent day in the seven days God took to create is yom. And like day, it can have the common 24 hr meaning or the meaning to denote an age. In the day of Roman rule…
Dr. Hugh Ross is a voice for this interpretation. While some of his science might be off, he has a lot of valid points worth considering.
But ultimately, we need only believe in God and Christ. I am anxious to pose these questions to Him. His creation is spectacular.
Also, not being a Creationist, does not mean one does not believe that God Created the universe. Remember that Creationism is a scientific theory with a specific scientific model. He may feel the model is flawed and may have his own input for another God-centric model.
Report Post »warner
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 7:40am@Republic Under God: I agree with your comments and if this gentlemen doesn’t believe in the “theory of Chreationism” I stand corrected. I am speaking to a non-belief in the Genesis story as stated in the Bible. I have a hard time with folks that profess their Christianity yet debumk the Bible. Many scientist (see above) want to swagger with their intellect and yet refuse to have faith in the Word of God. They may state that they don’t believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth, etc. for their science will not allow them to believe….yet, that beleive in Jesus Christ. A man born from a virgin, walked on water, raised the dead and rose again after being in the grave for three days. I would think if they were honest with themselves that their “science” doesn’t validate such acts. Hence, this is where FAITH comes into play. Faith that the Bible is the word of God, written by man, inspired by God. I am not sitting in judgment of these folks…but rather attempting to have them realize their hypocrisy. In the end, we will all be judged before God Almighty. Thanks for your comments and Merry Christmas!
Report Post »NC1
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:40amGeez, I learned in a public school that monks discovered genetics in plants and it helped them to grow better food. Who would’ve thought that a religious person could figure out how something worked? And who would‘ve thought that it would’ve been taught in a public school that a religious person made the discovery? I‘m surprised that the story hasn’t been changed to say a devout athiest was the one who discovered the concept of genetics. Give it time I suppose.
Report Post »warner
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:37amCan someone explain to me how a Christian can make a statement “he is not a creationist…” ? It would seem to me Mr. Gaskel has a different definition as to what a Christian is…thank I do! Believing in God does not make you a Christian… even Satan and all his demons believe in God and His son Jesus Christ. Your either with God or Darwin? You choose!
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:44amEven atheists have been known to seriously doubt Darwin. Carl Sagan believed that life is too complex to have evolved by pure chance and thought it was brought here by aliens from another planet.
Report Post »Mark Tripp
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:12amWith all due respect, I reject your premise.
A VERY long time ago, in a world that did not sue over such things, my Biology Professor said the following before we studied this subject…
“Some people believe God did everything (he put one hand on the table like a karate chop), some people believe there is no God and everything just happened, (he put the other hand down on the table in the same way, about two feet between them,) others believe something between the two. We are going to study the process, and leave the rest to others.”
Works for me. In truth, most people who praise Darwin, have never read his book, because he himself makes some strong points for rejecting it that have yet to be dealt with….
Report Post »AR485
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:34amYou have to love institutions of higher learning for their willingness to consider the open arena of ideas and beliefs…that is unless you refuse to drink the evolution theory Kool-Aid. As scientists, aren’t they suppose to consider all possibilities until scientifically disproven? Astronomers are more willing to believe in aliens, for which they have no scientific proof, than they would an intelligent designer. In that case, should they refuse to hire anyone who believes that there are aliens flying around in little saucers?
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:30amI’m going out a limb and say there will be about 1000 comments on this story.
My 2 pennies.
The birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are some of the best documented events in ancient history with over 5,000 documentary references.
Report Post »BeckIsNuts
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:50amActually, it was all word of mouth. There were no writings at the time and for some time after by Jesus himself or his followers to prove he ever truly existed. Many subsequent writings were excluded by committee from the bible. I always found it very puzzling as to why the heavens choose to stand by for 100,000 years (+ or -) silently watching the human species in its present form suffer and die without making itself known and then suddenly decide just a few thousand years ago to intercede. And not in China where we had developed the written word which would have been an excellent way to spread the word of god without any of the doubt the lack of it presents. No, a near stone age culture in the middle east with no writing, a primitive, backward agrarian culture, was instead selected as ground zero for god’s arrival. Some story huh?
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:07am@BeckIsNuts
You‘re so magnificently wrong it’s sends a thrill up my leg.
Not that you’re interested in facts, but if you are read “The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence.” It’s written by a lawyer who helped establish the Harvard Law School. He was an atheist until he looked at the evidence.
Facts are stubborn things…
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:09amCS Lewis was also an atheist until he was challenged by his evangelical friends to prove them wrong…he converted shortly after. His series of books on the subject, Mere Christianity, the Screwtape Letters, and many more are the most compelling argument I have ever seen from anyone on the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
and a writer that BeckisNuts should look up before openning his mouth again about Jesus of Nazereth. Josephus, the War of the Jews and Antiquitites of the Jews. He ABSOLUTLEY states from ROMAN records that there was a man named Jesus that was crucified in Jerusalem for high crimes against the state. He gives a brief description of Jesus and who he was and what he did and what he was charged with, he does not state Jesus was divine, after all, he was a Roman Jew.
Report Post »Alydia
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:27amCan’t have science without GOD…
Report Post »APEXIdaho
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:10am“Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men.” Henry Eyring, theoretical chemist.
All chemists know his work, alot know him by name.
Report Post »APEXIdaho
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:43amSome people believe Eyring was denied the Nobel Prize because of his religion.
Report Post »publiuswarmac9999
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:27amThere is no real conflict between evolution and intelligent design. The conflict is an artificial separation. If you go back through the history of science, you will find that some of the world’s greatest scientists were searching for God. Even today, some of the world’s greatest scientists are in awe of the design of the universe – and that awe often is reflected in humble praise for God’s work.
Report Post »GeeWhiz
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:46amYup.
The more that you know about the universe, the more you can marvel at it’s perfection…and the more that one can say ‘ how could this have merely been an accident?’
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:01amThe modern person forgets much in regards to science and religion.
Science is a tool to look for and describe the universe with math.
Religion is a system to instill belief and values in a person or society.
How those conflict is beyond me. One can be absolutely a mystic in regards to value systems and morality, and still be a stringent stickler when it comes to science and math. Where’s the conflict?
Report Post »benrush
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:24amThe funny thing is, there is more evidence for the reality of God than there is for biological evolution. Yet these programmed robots with their kneejerk anti-religion preconceptions have duped a generation of innocent and vulnerable minds into a whole-hearted and full -throated commitment to a biological theory that they haven‘t and can’t prove. I don’t care how clever they think they are, they are routinely overstating their case and as scientists, they should know it.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:19amScience and creation should not be in conflict. Science can neither prove or disprove evolution or creationism. However, it’s a lot longer reach to explain life without inteligent design than with it. Watch ‘The Privileged Planet” if you don’t agree.
Report Post »crookedcreek
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:44amThere is always the question: If things evolve, what makes THAT happen?
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:58am@CrookedCreek
That’s approaching it from the Aristotelian Prime Mover viewpoint. For all we know, the universe is closer to super-string theory than Big Bang and there is no prime mover to speak of.
As for evolution, the “what makes THAT happen” is pretty simple. Environment and genetic mutations. Environment simply is, organisms adapt, and genetic mutations occur through either breeding mishaps or cosmic rays playing loose and lazy with a DNA strand.
I agree, there really is no conflict between science and religion. One is meant as a tool to discover and map out the universe in an understandable language, namely mathematics, the other is a belief system which conveys a sense of value and morality to a given society.
At no other time in recent history has there been this so called “conflict”. Galileo would have left you reeling with the notion that he was a Priest, for example, and who here would call him some kind of superstitious loon who didn’t grok science? No, this “conflict” is wholly invented and contrived and very recent. Start digging for the who and what of it all and you’ll find yourself looking through the writings of various communists in short order. Ponder that for a bit.
Report Post »crookedcreek
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:04am“As for evolution, the “what makes THAT happen” is pretty simple. Environment and genetic mutations. Environment simply is, organisms adapt, and genetic mutations occur through either breeding mishaps or cosmic rays playing loose and lazy with a DNA strand.”
Ah yes, but that is just another recombination of physical matter, directed from a purpose so, the question remains valid: What makes THAT happen? Let us remember that has sufficiently shown that matter remains stationary unless acted upon by an exterior influence.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:38am@CrookedCreek
Your question is actually the “prime mover” of science. :)
This is the question that inspires every scientist to get up in the morning and go to work. Nobody knows, as of yet. I doubt we’ll ever get to the final bottom of it all. It’s fun to try though.
Report Post »sbenard
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:18amI don’t believe in atheists!
An atheist is just a person who is unwilling to make the effort to know what the rest of us HAVE made the effort to know!
Report Post »BeckIsNuts
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:21amsbenard, define the term “know” in the context of your statement. By doing so, how weak your premise truly is will be revealed.
Report Post »proudinfidel54
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:23pmBECKISNUTS It is simple, the definition of KNOW is God wrote the truth in our hearts since the beginning of time and we know through faith and not some scientific memo.
Report Post »benrush
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:18amEvolution is the brainwashed cult of pagan science. It’s a religion to them, with a high priesthood and a missionary force, and rituals. It’s not based on truth, but opinion.
Report Post »Docroxall
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:07amIf you wish to fundamentally understand the nature of the Atheist/Evolution Religion…you must realize that their god is random chance, and the great unknown. They will take you all the way back to the big bang, stop, and when you ask “who created the big bang”?, the most informed will quote M-theory says extra dimensional m-branes collided. When you ask who created those? They will become angry and start cursing your ignorant faith. Does not insisting that these problems with their theory don’t exist, they are just unknown, come oddly close to my belief in God? So don’t act all intellectually superior to me. Your faith, atheist/evolutionist, is merely based on the belief that God does not exist…just as mine is based on the belief he does…at least I can answer the “who created that” question.
Report Post »JackOfTrades
Posted on December 19, 2010 at 2:07amOK, this is how i respond simply, it usually goes on after depending on the person but here is what id say to that “who created?” question. “What created God then, or did he just mystically wake up and say, let there be light”? Curious on what you would say then…
Report Post »JackOfTrades
Posted on December 19, 2010 at 2:14amAlso, knowing the history of religion, by what i know, it started as an explanation for natural phenomenon, like lightning; thunder; and natural disasters, then just progressed to what it is today. But please, correct me if im wrong.
Report Post »sbenard
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:02amI have also known religious discrimination for my faith. When my boss at one place of employment refused to allow one of my fellow workers to work on Sundays, I told him that I would also like to have Sundays off so I could attend Church. He refused and told me that I was required to work Sundays. When I mentioned that another co-worker WANTED to work Sunday, and she was left off the Sunday schedule month after month, he gave me the brush-off.
When I mentioned to a leader at my Church that my boss was forcing me to work Sundays while my co-workers were banned from working the same day (they wanted the hours and higher sales), my Church leader, who happened to be a lawyer (real estate), called the highest executive of that business without my knowledge. Suddenly, my boss took me off the Sunday work schedule. When I inquired about it, he just told me, “Don’t worry, you’ll never have to work on Sunday again!” He then added the line, “This is why we don’t hire people of your religion here!” I was stunned, and so were my co-workers. The execs of the business had forced my boss to remove me from the Sunday schedule.
Ironically, my boss was hoping to get fired because he was hoping to get a huge severance package like his buddy received from the same company. I don’t know what ultimately happened to him, but two of the women in our department, including the one who was refused Sunday work, were preparing sexual harassment suits against him (and with good reason because he made sexual comments to them all the time).
Religious discrimination against Christians is real, even in the United States. My boss, who happened to be a non-practicing Jew, later fabricated a reason to fire me because of an illness for which I was suddenly and unexpectedly sent to the emergency room. He fired me because I ended up in the hospital for three days! Hard to believe he could get away with that either, but he did it!
Report Post »mgibs363
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:36amWhether you believe in creation, intelligent design, or evolution, the facts of THIS case do not change. He was rejected because of his religious beliefs, and at a publicly funded University that is discrimination. Pure and simple.
Report Post »BeckIsNuts
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:40amThat seems to be the case based upon the information in the article. It will be interesting to what the outcome in the courts is.
Report Post »dablooz
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:51amYou would think that as scientists, his detractors would have gathered pertinent objective facts instead of basing their opinions of his qualifications on rumors, innuendo and gossipy emails. Pretty sad, but says a lot about the state of the staff at this particular institution.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:50am“Whether you believe in creation, intelligent design, or evolution, the facts of THIS case do not change. He was rejected because of his religious beliefs, and at a publicly funded University that is discrimination. Pure and simple.”
Yes, a very astute observation. Let’s see how this turns out, if it’s reported later.
Report Post »kokoro
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:09amThe media does not present all the facts; only those that will grab our interest. Put yourself in a hiring manager’s shoes: would you hire a wildcard who may or may not follow accepted scientific models OR would you hire the other guy who was not quite so charismatic, but equally qualified? That is pretty easy….hire the one who will be an easier employee to manage. This had less to do with faith and more to do with management and long-term liability.
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:54amKokoro
in Kentucky…the Bible Belt of the Nation…having a scientist that believes in God would be a GOOD P.R. move. Having a scientist that could present evidence for and against the misconceptions or beliefs of church going people would be an educational event. He could describe to people the TRUTH, as science is nothing more than the pursuit of TRUTH, yet he would be aware of their religious arguments against what we know and how to be true in science. This would put him in the PERFECT position, from a manager’s standpoint for this position. He could talk to people and tell them, “no, what you are talking about is faith, I am talking about science. here is where the two agree and this is the error you have that makes you think they disagree.” How perfect is that!!!
Report Post »sickoftalking
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:44pm@kokoro:
The facts that we do know is that this person believes Creationism and Young Earthism are nonsense, and he understands the science behind evolution — being the best qualified candidate for the job, you can bet he does. Its stated that he accepts evolution but is critical of some of the theory argued on behalf of it. What other facts are there to consider?
In this case, its not any different than if the man had a different opinion on a scientific matter, and was blocked from a job for political reasons. Lets say someone applied for a job at an Environmental Science department, and was denied the position because he made some remarks skeptical of the official IPCC models — lets say, given the purported qualifications of the person in this story — that its Prof. Richard Lindzen. It would be wrong to deny such a skeptic on climate change models a job, even though he clearly understood the science, only because he had different views on it. Its not his fault that his viewpoint is considered controversial, he’s only taking the positions he thinks are right and objective himself.
People think that the evolution debate is divided between religious Christians and objectives scientists, and thats not true at all. There are many academics who are atheists or irreligious and are very critical of the current model of evolutionary theory. The biggest criticism is how much evolutionary writing relies on the idea of ‘chance’. Some of the critics are neo-Lamarckists, saying that there’s evidence acquired traits play a greater role in evolution than scientists recognize. Some of these are what are called teleo-mechanists, and want to take a fresh look at 19th century theories of evolution which argued that far from being based on chance, evolution happens in an ordered manner, based on a consistent set of principles.
Some people who have been very much pro-evolution but have disagreed with the official view have been attacked viciously, tied to racists (since the argument was that the belief that there was progress in evolution could be used to support racism), and falsely implicated in hoaxes. The fact that some of these people were Christians is irrelevant, because some of them weren’t. And at any rate the implication that you have to be a religious fundamentalist to want to criticize the current scientific models is outrageous to begin with.
Politics dumbs down the evolution debate just as it dumbs down the global warming debate, much more than people realize who don’t pay attention to these very esoteric academic discussions. A lot of really smart, honest people are hurt in the process.
60 years ago there were all sorts of excuses to why gay people couldn’t perform their jobs. Being gay was classified as a mental disorder and a gay person wasn’t considered of the right temperament or ability. People (of different beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage) realized this was wrong. Lets realize its also wrong to stereotype religious people or people with conservative views and deny them jobs on the basis of their beliefs.
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:31amQuite possible that gods plans for Martin Gaskell isn’t that particular position at UK.
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans!
Report Post »JesusLives
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:30amBlessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Report Post »Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
cindyloo
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:27amA Christian Scientist is synonymous with Intelligent Design. It leans closer to Truth than all man-made theories combined.
Report Post »PaxFelix
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:22amFor a view on how contemptibly widespread this problem is in the Academy, see Ben Stein’s brilliant _Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed_. This guy’s experience is the same song, next verse. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Report Post »crookedcreek
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:16amYes it is a bad thing when our religions are attacked. Jefferson and the other founding fathers got it right. We must stand for all men’s religions, for it is these that stand in the way of the “money changers” and their ultimate goal of making material out of life and then being the sole owner of that material..
Report Post »82dAirborne
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:02amEinstein said “God does not play dice with the universe.” I don’t see the problem with this guy……… He should sue, he should win.
Report Post »13thGenerationAmerican
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 7:37amA University cannot have someone who believes in ancient myths teach Science. Would you want your doctor practicing 2000 year old medicine on you, I don’t think so.
Report Post »guyperram
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 7:48amOnce again, study your history. It was only in the last 100 years or so that we caught up to the level of medicine practiced during the Roman empire. Galen, a practioner during that period, used antiseptics for surgery, clean room practices, herbal remedies for minor problems, anesthesia during operations, etc.
Report Post »It was safer to get sick during that period then it was for almost 1500 years afterward.
Why is it that people assume that our forefathers were all a bunch of stupid, ignorant dolts? When you learn our real history you find that they were as far advanced, for their time, as we feel we are for ours. Without their knowledge gains just where would we be?
NoName22
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:52amGenesis 3:14 (KJ)
“14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.”
Fits in with evolution nicely……Atheists wish that evolution could prove the Bible wrong, alas the joke is on them……What non-believers do not understand, is science is merely understanding God’s creation, therefore you are not discovering anything new, rather learning more about what God already knows.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:41amA positive declaration that religion is a myth, it itself a declaration of faith, that is, knowledge without proof. By making it, you are in exactly the same spot as the religious people you try to put down. :)
Besides, explain to me how a belief in the Christian God influences one’s decision about what class of star one is looking at?
Report Post »BeckIsNuts
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:08amgohstofJ., there is no knowledge without proof, only speculation and theory. Or in the case of religion, FAITH: a belief in something unprovable, delivered to you by another person, again without any proof to back up the assertion. What can be asserted without proof can also be dismissed without proof.
I wish more people would jar open the window in the stuffy little room that is their mind, and let some fresh air in. At least from time to time. It would be a positive step forward.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:27am@Beckisnuts
I have a stalker. :)
You said:
“gohstofJ., there is no knowledge without proof, only speculation and theory. Or in the case of religion, FAITH: a belief in something unprovable, delivered to you by another person, again without any proof to back up the assertion. What can be asserted without proof can also be dismissed without proof.”
Then dark matter can be dismissed, since it is only conjecture based upon unproven (to date) math. See?
A positive declaration that something doesn’t exist is a declaration that one has some facts to back that up. However, I see none forthcoming. The best an honest agnostic/atheist can say, and remain consistent, is “I have no proof of God’s existence, ergo, I take the position of disbelief until proof arises that causes me to change this position”. Your argument is “I declare it doesn‘t exist and because I declare it doesn’t exist it doesn‘t exist therefore it can be brushed aside as not existing since it doesn’t exist and things that don’t exist can be declared as not existing without further consideration”. Hardly scientific or logically sound, to be certain. Remember, absence of proof is not proof of absence. Again, dark matter comes to mind here. All we have is conjecture based on math that may well be misinterpreted because the model is wrong (such as was the case with the retrograde motion of Mars in pre-Copernican models of planetary motion).
You said:
“I wish more people would jar open the window in the stuffy little room that is their mind, and let some fresh air in. At least from time to time. It would be a positive step forward.”
Advice you may wish to take yourself. You’re trying to make an enemy where none exists. Is the notion of disagreement or challenging of even basic questions so threatening to you that you must snap your mind shut, engage in ad hominem, and deride and ridicule all opposition? Please, let’s speak as adults without the insults, sneers and passive aggressive posturing.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:35am@Beckisnuts
Also, you didn’t answer the question I posed. Why not, I wonder?
How does one’s belief or disbelief in evolution matter one little in regards to how one determines what class of star one is looking at?
Report Post »BeckIsNuts
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:48amGhost, one more and I have to go.
First, don’t mistake playful sparring with a street mugging.
Next, dark matter can be dismissed, yes. But not the theory of dark matter. The same logic says a round earth could have been dismissed too at one time. Eventually that was proven wrong, as will the nonexistence of dark matter I believe, based on continued efforts by science.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:31am@BeckIsNuts
You said:
“Next, dark matter can be dismissed, yes. ”
Exactly correct.
You Said:
“But not the theory of dark matter. ”
The claim was never made that the hypothesis of dark matter could be dismissed. The claim was simply that it lacked actual evidence of existence at the current time. The mathematical model may well be right, it may not, we simply won’t know until we make identification of dark matter in a positive sense. Again, generally accepted European pre-Copernican solar system models had the retrograde motion of Mars fully explained with their “math”, and they were 100% utterly incorrect about the actual reasons for Mars retrograde motion when viewed from earth.
“The same logic says a round earth could have been dismissed too at one time. ”
People knew the earth was round thousands of years ago.
“Eventually that was proven wrong, as will the nonexistence of dark matter I believe, based on continued efforts by science.”
Well, see, that‘s a leap of faith though isn’t it? You accept the premise because you like the model. But if the model is in fact wrong, and it may well be if we live in a universe governed by a system unlike the Big Bang, then you’re left grasping.
Me, I simply am uncertain about any cosmological model that is accepted as “the one” right now. It seems to me that if one needs to fudge one‘s math and base one’s model on a substance that is undiscovered yet which accounts for 97% of the math being correct, that there may be more to it than what we know currently. Certainly far more study is needed before we can accept the current Big Bang model, in my estimation. It might be right, it might not, but we have a huge gaping variable that needs filled to make it work, that simply isn’t present yet which would have to be nearly everywhere.
Report Post »DarKangelAZRAEL
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:12pm@GhostofJefferson I have to say, you have a new fan in me. BeckisNuts and I have bantered before as well and I do love how he just cannot give up it is a great quality. I love the eloquent civility here and to date I think one of the most open minds I have come across in the online realm. You do us all a service even if I don’t agree with you either. At least not 100% but none of us really have to at all. I am honored however to share this entire forum with so many people that really put the progressives to shame with how they handle their positions and objectives. That goes for you as well BeckisNuts. Thanks guys this is great.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:37pm@Darkangel
Thank you very much for the compliments, I’m honored to even be noticed. :)
Report Post »HillBillySam1
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:47pmGee, 13th….I just bet that you and Lt. Dan LOVE to watch movies about gladiators dating back 2000 years….nothing mythological about that, hmmmm???
Report Post »DarKangelAZRAEL
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:55pmNo problem. It just infuriates me that we cannot, all as one, live within and refer to common sense and conscience when debating or really when doing anything. It is refreshing to see it more often on the Blaze than anywhere else. We do have our wacko unbending and annoying types on here but you will get that anywhere. I am glad we have the others I mentioned as well.
Now as far as that goes, I believe in God and Christ and that Christ is the way tot he father AND I take the bible’s literalness with a grain of salt. I believe the big bang is most likely correct but that it was God’s will that fostered it. And many other things that Science wants to use as evidence against I find to be evidence of miracles ETC. But for many My open mindedness to science is not enough. I must close my mind and heart to religion as well. This is such a sad thing to see within many that debate these issues.
Sincerely,
Report Post »Azrael.
komponist-ZAH
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 10:05pm@Ghost–
I believe it was Eritosthenes (spelling?), the chief librarian in Alexandria, who first calculated (very accurately) the circumference of the earth, though it was known that the earth was round centuries before him, perhaps even by the Babylonians. And you can make that two fans. ;)
@Azrael–
Report Post »How many tongues, wings, and eyes do you really have? ;)
komponist-ZAH
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 10:08pm@Ghost–
Report Post »BTW, I notice Nuts still didn’t answer your question.
DarKangelAZRAEL
Posted on December 20, 2010 at 7:48am@ZAH & @Ghost,
The number actually changes with the situation and my mood ;) it’s why no one can really get it right. ;) @BeckisNuts has a good head on his shoulder most of the time but i think he looses it rationality when religion really starts to get debated. Politics he seems to be on top of but he has a fervent dislike of religion and it gets in the way I think. Anyhow, I am still glad to be among people that can debate so rationally on most subjects. God bless and Merry Christmas!
Report Post »GeauxAlready
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 7:32amGod and the Heavens what a threat.
Had a man tell me when I was alot younger, he said “I’d rather go thru life believing in God, die and find out there’s not. Than live not believing, dying and finding out there is.”
What did we expect there from Ky they sleep with their sisters…………..
Report Post »PaxFelix
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:19amUnless you’re about 350 years old, your guy plagiarized the Catholic theologian, mathemetician, inventor, and physicist Blaise Pascal.
The philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, note 233):
1.”God is, or He is not”
2.A Game is being played… where heads or tails will turn up.
3.According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4.You must wager. It is not optional.
5.Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6.Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
(My own plagiarization from Wikipaedia.)
Report Post »GeauxAlready
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:25amI see you sleep with your sister……..
Report Post »TheOneFreeman
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:31amwow your an idiot
Report Post »HillBillySam1
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:26pmHow dare you, madam to malign my beloved Kentucky with your obviously baseless claims and false allegations!!!! If I wasn’t such a gentleman, I would slap my sister!!! And possibly rough up my first cousin(twice removed, of course)…..
Report Post »guyperram
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 7:21amMarxist’s hate and despise religion. Lenin called it the “opiate of the masses”. Is there anyone so myoptic that they do not realize that the Marxists have taken over most of our universitys? If you don’t believe this, then just wait until you get your reading list when going for a Masters, especially a Masters of Education.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:21amI don’t think anyone here would think that, I do have a brother-in-law who is a christian, he teaches in the science department and he is definitly in the minority.
Report Post »BeckIsNuts
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:36amGuyperram, you’re confused. Allow me to help you out a bit. It was Marx, not Lenin, and the exact quote is below:
“Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
Report Post »[Marx, Introduction to Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right]
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:38amI believe it was Marx who called religion the opiate of the masses.
“Die Religion … ist das Opium des Volkes“ from his work ”Contribution to Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”.
Report Post »BeckIsNuts
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:59amghostofjefferson, you are one hour and two minutes late with your comment, which was also incomplete.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:20am@Beckisnuts
I didn’t read your response before I posted. And the quote was actually the real quote in the original German from the text, and cited the source.
Why so angry this morning? Bad night or something? Hope your day gets better.
Report Post »HillBillySam1
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 7:19amMr. Gaskel seems to have been found guilty of blaspheming the official religion of the Progressives….evolution. These same Progressives who pride themselves as being “tolerant” and “open to other views” are found to be nothing more than fundamentalists themselves…..
Report Post »jedi.kep
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 7:29amFundamentalist Liberals. Dear God, what is the world coming to?
Report Post »Highland
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:00amIf ever anyone needed proof that evolution is a religion, here it is.
Report Post »kokoro
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:58amThe word “theory” in scientific terms does NOT mean the same thing as in non-scientific terms. We all allegedly learned that in elementary school…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:41amKokoro is right. A scientific theory is the first step in the scientific method. You state a hypothesis, a theory, a description of how you think the world works (meaning it is an opinion) and then you set out with investigation, past experiments, and your own experiments, to try and prove your theory. If your results seem to agree with your theory, that theory is reported and then tested by other members of the scientific community. If everyone comes up with the same results within a margin of error, then the theory is validated and published and stays in effect until someone either improves upon or disproves the theory.
we have found 1000′s of evolutionary problems, mainly the lack of a complete fossil record, and we have even found errors in Einstein’s theory of General and Special Relativity. They have lead us to Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, Plasma Physics, and a WHOLE host of other branches of mathematics and science. why some people are FANATICAL believers in the absolutism of evolution is beyond me. they are not being scientific, they are, by defintion, being Religious Fundamentalists.
Report Post »proudinfidel54
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:53pmVRWCONSPIRATOR, what you said is true about the holes in the evolutionary theory is an understatement, in fact, the whole basis for teaching evolution in the school is a fallacy, it is base on a court case by that athiest woman, Murray…It was known as the “Nebraska Man”. is which scientists claimed to have discovered the tooth of the missing link. Well a very intelligent scientist from The Creation Evidence Museum Doctor Carl Bower(unsure of his name spelling) in Pasedena Tx. actually went out and re excuvated the sight and unearthed the rest on the fossil and it was a prehistoric pig…He also found (in one of his digs) a footprint of a man in the same layer of cravastious rock that he found a dinosaur footprint, thus, disproving the theory that first dinosaurs roamed the earth, then millions of years later, the fist man appeared. This finding was at a volcanic lake in Texas. Check out this Museum…lots of good stuff if it still exists.
Report Post »moonfish
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 7:12amI wonder if Holder will pick this one up and sue on behalf of the Federal Government… Like he did for the Muslim teacher?
Report Post »Anarcho Capitalist
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 7:28amNo he wont.
Report Post »I don’t see why its bad. Why would anyone want a scientist that has a set notion about the nature of the universe based on faith. Faith is not a part of science, it gives you the global warming type except in this case it would be on the other end of the spectrum.
Islesfordian
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 7:37amAs long as that faith is not in conflict with established scientific princples what problem is there? Do you think scientists do not have basic beliefs about the universe that informs how they look at it. Einstein disagreed with Quantum mechanics saying “God does not play dice with the universe”. Did that philosophical presupposition make him a bad scientist?
Report Post »Anarcho Capitalist
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 7:51amIts hard to say what kind of Christian this guy actually is so i cant for sher say it was a good idea to not heir him. I do know that many christians (not all) will turn a blind eye to the truth when it is conflict with something they “believe” But this is not just a christian thing. Atheist, muslims, global warming people, they all do the same thing. What you should be looking for in a scientist is someone who is objective. They can hold what ever fantasy they want as truth so long as they don’t let it effect the work. Its just not a good sign when you go looking for a logical person for a job and they have invisible friends, be it the boogie man or God. Religion is a primitive form of philosophy based on what people want reality to be but no what it is.
Good or Bad, against the law or not, employers should have the right to discriminate in any way they want. If you don’t want to employ women or christians or dogs so be it. let the market decide if you made the right choice.
Report Post »KICKILLEGALSOUT
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:09amAnd how is the “Theory” of evolution science? The Atheists are always whining about Christians so called “forcing” their religion upon them but yet they are forcing their philosophy of evolution on others doing the same thing they accuse others of. What bigoted hypocrisy! I hope he wins but probably won’t, after all he isn’t a Muslim,
Report Post »BlazingInSC
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:14am@Anarcho Capitalist – This is pretty clear. They used religion as a basis for their decision not to promote him at a job at a publicly funded institution of higher learning. That is discrimination and is protected under the Equal Opportunity Employment Act. It’s no different than not hiring him based on race or gender.
Report Post »Colonial Revolutionary
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:15amYou can’t discriminate your hiring practices based on religion. Sounds pretty cut and dry to me.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 8:48am“Its just not a good sign when you go looking for a logical person for a job and they have invisible friends, ”
This is a fairly typical misrepresentation of religion. It also confuses the distinction between belief in invisible things and belief that they are not invisible (or silent) TO YOU. Many people talk to plants and their pets. Few believe that these things talk back to them.
Belief in invisible things is not unscientific in itself. Scientists are always positing the existence of something as the most logical explanation for observatiopns that can’t be explained otherwise. Evere heard of DARK MATTER? It’s existence is entirley theoretical. If many inteligent people conclude that an invisible Creator is the most logical exlanation for the exquiste harmony and complexity of the visible universe how can that be called unscientific? Until science can come up with an explanation that not only doesn’t require God but actually disproves his existence, than theism, per se, can never conflict with pure science.
Report Post »capitalismrocks
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:06amInteresting how they cherry pick the non-existent “Separation of Church and State” when they go after Christians, but man, they rally the troops to come to the defense of some Muslim teacher…
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:36am@anarcho capitalist
You said:
“No he wont.
I don’t see why its bad. Why would anyone want a scientist that has a set notion about the nature of the universe based on faith. Faith is not a part of science, it gives you the global warming type except in this case it would be on the other end of the spectrum.”
Explain to me, precisely, what a belief or disbelief in the theory of evolution has to do with astronomy.
I’m trying to find a correlation, but none seem forthcoming. As I recall, Galileo, Newton, Einstein and other prominent minds in physics and astronomy, were quite religious.
And again, coming back to the theory of evolution, how would that influence his readings of star spectral analysis graphs or distort his judgment on the distance that a galaxy might lay from our current position in the universe? Help me out here.
Report Post »BeckIsNuts
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:37amIslesfordian, quite to the contrary, what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. The work of proving a supreme being created everything is all on your side.
Look how science disproves many aspects of Glenn’s mormon church. Just for starters, the prohibition on consuming mood altering substances such as alcohol, coffee and tea. When that rule was created, people were ignorant of a few pertinent facts and they got it wrong. Yet they claim god as the authority for their church. Glenn goes on and on about sugary foods such as ice cream, high test hot chocolate, donuts, cookies etc. It’s now common knowledge that these high sugar delights are not only unhealthy, they also have a direct effect on your mood and energy levels. Yet there is no prohibition of any sort on their consumption. Tea however, which is a very healthy and beneficial drink loaded with anit-oxidants (known to help prevent cancer) is a big no no. So if god inspired their church and its laws, how can this glaring error be explained away? It cannot.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:44am@BeckIsNuts
Can you show me where God says do or don’t eat something because it is unhealthy or makes you fat?
The closest you’re going to come is with pork and it being “unclean”, but given what we know of Trichinosis and pork, that seems a pretty logical thing to prohibit, especially given the time frame in history we’re talking about here.
Your fallacy is that you assigned a non-existent position against the argument you were trying to defeat, defeated the non-existent position, then declared victory against the argument. That’s known in the current language as a “straw man”.
Report Post »Anarcho Capitalist
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:44amISLESFORDIAN
Reading what i wrote I have decided that it was disrespectful. I didn’t mean it to be that way. I should have stated it differently. Its not the invisible things too the eye that i meant, I think you know that. It is ideas such as God or what have you, that there is no evidence to suggest exist at all. You cannot ask people to prove a negative. what i mean is you cannot simply say something is without any evidence and ask people to prove you wrong.
A good example would be for me to suggest that God has a twin. A twin God. I suggest that there are 2 Gods and its up to you to prove me wrong. It is simply not how logic works. You must start with what is and build on it, not with a preconceived notion of what you want or what someone says is and try building to prove it right or wrong.
So yes it is fine to believe in God if you wish. No one should need my approval to believe in anything. Its just not right to ask others to accept, approve, or even respect your held believes till they prove you wrong. That is a backwards way of thinking.
The real topic is whether an employer can discriminate. the law says no. morality says yes. the law is wrong. I don’t think religion would stop me from employing someone unless they where nutty fundamentalist. But i know its not my place to force other people to make the same choice i would.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:53am@anarcho capitalist
I agree with your statement about employment and discretion of the employer. No disagreements at all, in regards to the private sector.
It should be noted however that this is a publicly funded job, and of all things in the world, government should not play favorites with society.
And to cut off the notion right at the base, I don’t think government should be in the astronomy business in the first place. But in this case it is, and it is using public money (aka money stolen from you and me) to turn down somebody who was clearly (at least according to the article) the most highly qualified candidate for the job.
Report Post »mikem1969
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:53amOnce again attacks on christians. I bet the US gov and the ACLU and the EEOC will not touch it.
Report Post »BeckIsNuts
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:56amghostofjefferson, your attempt at misdirection and obfuscation is a complete failure. It’s the tactic of a desperate man. To be clear, my point involved the Mormon church and their specific rules, which you failed to address. Your reply has no merit.
Report Post »Mark Tripp
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:01amThen Isaac Newton or Faraday, to name only two, would NOT be allowed to teach there….
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:04amI bet you guys don‘t know why Saturn’s ancient symbol is the hexagram
Report Post »http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20070327.html
the same one as on the Israeli flag
http://www.yahuahreigns.com/saturn and the occult.html
Mark Tripp
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:05am@Beckisnuts
Still? Really? More silly anti-mormon venom, on EVERYTHING?
I notice you have not signed on ANY of the debating sites I’ve directed you to, and you sure haven’t replied to my points.
So, is being a bigot all you got?
Report Post »BeckIsNuts
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:13amMark Tripp, you are correct. Neither would Einstein, Socrates, or Carl Sagan for that matter. They are all dead.
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:14amYes, the Federal government is working on a bill for this… just like the bill that protects gays, blacks and minorities. Christians, they have heard our cry and the new bill is called “Too bad, who cares”.
BTW, God is our “boss” and I rather rely on him than man :
Psalm 118:8 (New International Version)
8 It is better to take refuge in the LORD
Report Post »than to trust in humans.
NoMoreGray
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:14amAnarcho and others,
Report Post »Allow me to assist in your unerstanding with the words of your “religious” leader, Darwin. Darwin said that “the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God”.
Ironically the biggest obstacle to the truth is the same for Creationist as for Evolutionist… “the fear of the other side.” A true Darwinist would not be threatened by the possibility of God as Darwin himself obviously supported “intelligent design”. And a confident Christian would not be threatened by the thought that Gods creation process could be interpreted by man as evolution, especially if you distinguish between proven science and “accepted evolutionary theory.”
BeckIsNuts
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:16amMark Tripp, try to remain focused on the current discussion and leave the name calling at the door. That will serve the discussion best. Thank you.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:18am@Beckisnuts
You said:
“ghostofjefferson, your attempt at misdirection and obfuscation is a complete failure. It’s the tactic of a desperate man. To be clear, my point involved the Mormon church and their specific rules, which you failed to address. Your reply has no merit.”
Why is it that you cannot handle simple disagreement with your argument and must by needs try and turn it personal with ad hominem?
Show me, please, where the Mormon church prohibits things because they are unhealthy? Thanks.
Also, here’s something interesting:
“A 14-year selective study conducted by UCLA epidemiologist James E. Enstrom tracked the health of 10,000 moderately active LDS people in California and ended in 1987. Of these non-smoking, monogamous non-drinkers, Enstrom concluded from the study “that LDS Church members who follow religious mandates barring smoking and drinking have one of the lowest death rates from cancer and cardiovascular diseases—about half that of the general population. … Moreover, the healthiest LDS Church members enjoy a life expectancy eight to eleven years longer than that of the general white population in the United States.” The standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for whites in the general population is defined as 100. For males in the study, the SMRs “are 47 for all cancers, 52 for cardiovascular diseases, and 47 for all causes; the SMRs for females are 72 for all cancers, 64 for cardiovascular diseases, and 66 for all causes.” For LDS high priests who never smoked cigarettes, exercised, and had proper sleep, the mortality rate was less. The results were largely duplicated in a separate study of an LDS-like subgroup of white non-smoking churchgoers in Alameda County, California.[57]”
So whether they prohibit, say, a Hershey bar or not specifically, most Mormons seem to be able to grok the intent of their holy writings.
Your rhetorical straw man is simply not holding up I’m afraid. The Word of Wisdom outlines guidelines, but you are demanding a food by food item list. That is simply silly. Instead of it saying “don’t drink alcohol”, you’d have it instead list out every brand of alcohol from the beginning of time through the end of human kind. The thing is, we as human beings can abstract, if something has alcohol in it and is a drink, and we’re following a ban on alcoholic beverages, we don’t need to know whether the scripture meant only wine as opposed to, say, Makers Mark. Further, it appears from what I’m reading that the Mormons work similar to the Amish as far as doctrinal interpretation is concerned, with councils that issue official rulings on interpretation based on questions from their followers. So if somebody says “Hey, is chocolate in the ban” the council will deliberate on it and issue a ruling. Again, the Amish work the same way, in a different context (non-dietary). That seems quite reasonable.
Secondly, you’re criticizing followers of Mormanism, specifically one follower, for liking certain stimulants. However, if you’ve listened to Beck (have you?) on religion, he’s pretty wishy washy about Mormonism to begin with and holds a more generalized Christian faith from what I can discern, even citing himself at times with being a bit hypocritical to Mormanism in some senses. How this disproves religion, as you seem to want it to, is beyond me, can you explain? And, if you can, can you do it without attacking me please?
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:28amAnarcho Capitalist
Faith is a HUGE part of science. First, some background so we don’t make assumptions about where the information comes from. I am a Roman Catholic and a theoretical Physicist.
Point 1 – Faith/Belief/whatever you wish to call that spark in human nature that causes us to seek the unknown is the foundation for all scientific investigation. Going back to ancient China, MesoAmerica, Arabia, Europe…take your pick. Geometry, Biology, Astronomy, Physics and Chemistry all came into being SPECIFICALLY because humans were trying to understand the mysteries of the universe that they believed were created by their set of gods. You can not dismiss the Christian faith of Newton or Galileo anymore than you can the belief of Pharoah that he was god on Earth in how it guided their research and writings, investigations and experiments.
Point 2 – Christians specifically, through the Roman Catholic Church and Holy Roman Empire, were the overwhelming primary funder of scientific research and stay so today, for the last 1000 years. The largest collection of scientists in the world work for the Vatican. They are used daily to investigate reported miracles, research archeological evidence of the planet, and respond to false claims that religion and science are somehow anathema to each other. Galileo was the room mate of the Pope in college, he thought his buddy the Pope would back his theory and use it to tell people of the glory of God’s creation, the universe above. The Pope commuted the sentence of Galileo to house arrest from death and the Church post-humously pardoned and apologized to Galileo.
Point 3 – for the evolutionists and creationists out there. Darwin, in his own words, ADMITS he was WRONG!! On his death bed, he said that his theory of NATURAL SELECTION was NEVER intended to become what evolutionary THEORY believers made it. BTW, it takes more FAITH to believe in the random creation of the universe and LIFE on this planet ONLY then it does to believe that there is a GOD somewhere that started the whole process and guided life’s development, as the theory of Intelligent Design states. Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection simply states that LIFE ADAPTS to its surroundings. GEE!!! WOW!! REALLY!!
If you truly understand the theories of evolution and the theory of intelligent design or the faith belief of creationism, if you are intellectually HONEST and have INTEGRITY in your thought structure, THEY all AGREE!!! Here is what all three things state… 1) something created the universe out of nothing (God, Big Bang, whatever) 2) Life came into being on this planet and we have not found it anywhere else in the known universe 3) the ONLY disagreements from the belief and theories above is on the TIME LINE and HOW the evolution happened.
Now if you take two points out of Genesis, even those two disagreements MEAN NOTHING. 1) Genesis simple says that God spoke and it happened, it NEVER says that God made it poof into existence in its current form, remember Man was God’s LAST creation. Hmmm…Man was also the theory of evolutions last creation, no disagreement there. 2) “to the Lord, a 1000 years is but a day and a day is but a 1000 years” Time is meaningless to God, 7 days could have been 7 billion years!!! or even 15.297 billion, if you go by the evolutionary theory that the ancestor of Man first appeared on the evolutionary tree about 3 million years ago.
So Pope JP II and Pope Benedict XVI were both correct when they came out and said that the Church has NO disagreement with science and encourages science because it allows us to better understand the universe that God created!
Sorry…but this is a pet peeve of mine being a Christian and a highly trained and skilled scientist. Put aside your belief and your rhetoric and ponder the words of Galileo on the scientific method and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as Sherlock Holmes…”once you have ruled out the obvious, whatever remains, no matter how improbable or impossible, MUST be the TRUTH!” emphasis mine. God does not contradict science, God IS science, the better we understand science, math, human behavior, the better we understand God.
Report Post »BeckIsNuts
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:39amghostofJ., again, you sound desperate. That’s simply an observation. Most rational people would take it as such. In any event, you argue that the mormons don’t prohibit “things” because they are unhealthy and then go to quote a long paragraph detailing a study that contends mormons live longer because of their rules on prohibiting “things.” That’s enough to make a cat laugh. Case closed on that one.
My point is plain to see and understand. 1. God inspired their rules (it is claimed). 2.Their rules exclude a ban on something unhealthy yet include a ban on something healthy. 3. The science pertaining to the discussion was nonexistent at the conception of these rules. Therefore, 4. The mormon god was in error. Tea never should have been included in their list of taboo substances.
It’s quite a simple point. See you next time. If not, have a great Christmas.
Report Post »bertr
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:39amThe only way to be fair in this line of reasoning(and im not sure its worth doing so) would to only allow agnostics to be scientist, people who decidely believe there is a god or decidely believe there is not one would bias science in this line of logic since that question cannot at this time be “scientificly” proved.
Report Post »I dont think we should censor science one way or another, the truth will out itself eventually
NoMoreGray
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:44amVRW,
Report Post »You will find this link interesting and it will allow you to better support the fact that in the months before his death Darwin made statements that only confirm his earlier positions, one of which I quote above.
http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/did-darwin-become-christian-his-deathbed
proudinfidel54
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:49amANARCHO CAPITALIST as usual you liberal atheists have it 180 degees wrong, it is not the Christians that believe in the Global Warming is is the majority of these so-called scientists that lie and and falsify documents in order to further their own agenda. They jump up and down and rant and rave about religion having no place in the scientific community, and about inpending doom, yet, they actually have their own religion, and it is “Darwanism”. If you want to see their true colors just speak out against evolution and watch the fireworks. Moshe Elitzur (now I just wonder about this name) was correct about one thing, hiring Martin Gaskell would be a mistake, it would introduce a free thinker into an already opinionated, self serving, atheistic campus, after all, we wouldn’t want any free thinking educators in out propaganda swilling universities challenging the liberal “status quo”. This is not a new problem, it has been raging on for years, there was recently a renown scientist at the Smithonian fired for an article he wrote in which he stated that there is no way the universe was an accident brought about by random chance, that the more you see the intricacies involved in the makeup of things, the more you have to acknowledge the existence of intelligent design. This was a big blow to the established scientific coummunity becase he was one of the leading athorities they kept quoting to prove their point. He did a 180 which infuriated them. If you really want documented evidence on the all out war Scientists and Educators are waging againt people that dissagree with their theories, you need to see the movie “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” by Ben Stein, an excellent movie, very informative.
Report Post »NoName22
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:52am@VRW
You said, “A day to God is 1000 years and a 1000 years a day,”
Please allow me to back you up.
God created Light on the first day.
Created the heavens on the second.
Created dry land and plant life on the third.
On the 4th day,
“14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.”
Now we measure time based on the sun and stars. A revolution around the sun is 365 days. 24 hours in a day, yada yada yada…….Point is, not until the 4th day, would we ever be able to know how long a day was, as there is no known way to measure the length of a day until we have the sun and the stars……
5th day, sea life.
6th day, land life and man.
Let the Word speak.
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:55amThere is no doubt in my mind that the communist and secular astronomers would gang up on a Christian astronomer and claim the Christian astronomer is biased against good science. Such bias in favor of secularism and communism are rampant in public and state run universities everywhere. They love to make the falatious claim that the Christian has a warped scientific mind because he/she will only try to prove their beliefs in God. If this were true logic, then the communists and secularists could be charged with the same crime against science since they would only try to disprove any belief in God. Such complete ignorance and bias is responsible for what is wrong at our universities.
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:58amNOMOREGRAY
thanks…that was a little more in depth than i remember having read before…
Report Post »NoMoreGray
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:01amproudinfidel,
Report Post »A little support for your case for those who are not AFRAID to read them.
Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam
by Brian Sussman
The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists
by Roy W. Spencer
The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds)
by A.W. Montford
ozz
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:05am@Anarcho Capitalist Don’t be silly. Most of the greatest scientists in the world were Christian or at least had a firm understanding that there must be a God.
Report Post »Lantern
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:06amI’ve always consider God=science. Evolution happened, because God made it so. What’s the big deal?
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:23am@BeckIsNuts
You said:
“ghostofJ., again, you sound desperate.”
Ad hominem, meant to discredit the opponent by painting him as somehow unstable. Nothing more than personal conjecture, based on biased personal opinion. Rejected I’m afraid. Sorry.
You said:
“That’s simply an observation. Most rational people would take it as such. ”
Logical fallacy. You make a statement, and claim that rational people would accept it, which in fact declares that anybody who argues the contrary is irrational simply for the argument alone, in an attempt to discredit any arguments out of hand. Rejected. Sorry.
You said:
“In any event, you argue that the mormons don’t prohibit “things” because they are unhealthy “
I actually asked YOU to back up your claims by showing me where the notion of healthy/unhealthy are quoted in their doctrinal source. For all I know, they may make that claim, you made the assertion that “they prohibited XYZ, but later in history XYZ was shown to have a beneficial healthy effect, ergo, God as somehow wrong”. So, back up your claim with direct citation please, or the claim is invalid.
You said:
“and then go to quote a long paragraph detailing a study that contends mormons live longer because of their rules on prohibiting “things.” That’s enough to make a cat laugh. “
Actually, I made the citation in order to show you that despite your claims of healthy or unhealthy, the fact is that Mormons following their dietary restrictions are in general much better health than the normal person who follows no such restrictions. That was to put to rest your implying that somehow they are not being healthy. Whether they intentionally can cite scriptural/doctrinal reference of “healthy/unhealthy” is immaterial, as YOU were the one who brought up the contention in the first place. If one is judging a dietary regimen and overall it leads to dramatically better health for those who follow it, then nitpick about one or two food items based on “science!” then one is making an attempt to discredit something with a great track record by taking one item out of context and extrapolating the results towards the diet regimen in whole. An opposite example would be to note that many scientists at one time thought by many credible scientists that Piltdown man might be genuine, it was later discovered as a fraud, ergo science is not valid. QED
“Case closed on that one.”
Indeed sir, it is. ;)
“My point is plain to see and understand.“
Logical fallacy, of the kind noted above.
“1. God inspired their rules (it is claimed).”
Joseph Smith spoke the rules, as he claims inspired by God. That does not mean that the rules were inspired by God. For all we know, he went into the back room, took a hit off the ceremonial bong and made stuff up out of whole cloth. I’ll grant your “it is claimed” however, in order to draw my conclusion below more fully.
“ 2.Their rules exclude a ban on something unhealthy yet include a ban on something healthy. “
Show me the direct citation regarding healthy/unhealthy. See? This is where you’ve failed in the discussion thus far, you offer no proof of your contention when asked (and by this I’m not saying proof doesn’t exist, I’m asking you to back up your claim). Furthermore, things like wine can have a slight health benefit in moderation, however, alcohol in general is pretty damned destructive to overall health (I drink, don’t get me wrong). If one is issuing guidelines to a large general audience, the slight health effects of a glass of wine a day, measured against the huge health detriment that accompanies *real* alcohol consumption levels of most individuals, one would better suggest the safer path is to simply put out a blanket prohibition on alcohol rather than pick and choose.
Caffeine, generally, ain’t that great for us either. A slight health benefit from, say, green tea may not well negate the notion of a simple blanket condemnation for caffeine in general to a wide audience.
“Therefore, 4. The mormon god was in error. Tea never should have been included in their list of taboo substances.”
Here is why I granted your “so it is claimed” above.
The best you can claim is that Joseph Smith was in error. There is no documentation of God actually appearing and saying “don’t drink tea”. Whether they believe Joseph Smith was correct about his claims of Divine inspiration, or not, you claim the God Himself was in error. Your conclusion thus fails for lack of evidence that God said anything at all one way or the other.
“It’s quite a simple point. See you next time. If not, have a great Christmas.”
Nollaig chridheil huibh. Slainte
Report Post »Mark Tripp
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:31am@Beckisnuts
Your choose that screen name and want to call me on “name calling?” You are a bigot against the LDS faith, proven by your own words.
As to your fatuous reply to my point about Newton, even you are not so obtuse to have missed the point. I can name 44 off the top of my head who are also “dead,” but if you take the body of their work out of science, you would indeed have the dark ages.
Most of the greatest men of science, were also great men of faith.
Report Post »DarKangelAZRAEL
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:41amI do agree to some extent with Anarcho but at the same time it is too closed minded to believe a Christian scientist would have a closed mind. I believe it is very open for the fact that he is a scientist. Who is to day everything wasn’t created though? Perhaps God speaking the words LET THERE BE LIGHT fostered the Big Bang? Perhaps creating everything in 7 days to him is several billion or trillion years to a human person. I believe very much in God and Christ and take the literal meaning of the bible with a grain of salt. Men wrote it and CHOSE what gospels would go into it ETC ETC. I believe this guy would have been a great addition to the university. Perhaps SCIENCE is a way of unraveling God’s miracles to a certain extent. As even a scientist will tell you there is way too much they still just cannot explain about stuff they feel they have a decent grasp of.
Report Post »APEXIdaho
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:19pmThe Mormon “Word of Wisdom” Prohibits “hot drinks” Tea is usually considered a hot drink. Caffeine is an addictive drug. Tea contains oxalate which can cause kidney stones. Tannins in tea may increase one’s risk of esophageal cancer. Hot tea consumption has been linked to a higher risk for esophageal cancer. Taking milk with your tea may block the absorbtion of the healthful properties. Antioxidant catechins are not absorbed into the bloodstream when tea is drunk by itself, you need to add citrus.
Report Post »DanB
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:28pm@GhostofJefferson
As a “Mormon,” I loved your argument. Now I happen to believe that God did talk to Joseph Smith and revealed this, but this a matter of personal faith. Now I don’t have my copy of the Doctrine and Covenants with me. Here’s a few things that struck me off the top of my head.
It is a Word of Wisdom given at the time. It was later adopted as a commandment.
Many of the things listed were revealed as “designed for man/beast/etc.” It didn’t say that corn was bad for man. It said corn was for the beasts of the field. Note: we feed cattle, fouls, and plenty corn to “fatten” them up for our markets…. As for myself, I like sweet corn and eat it regularly.
Take tobacco, the Word of Wisdom actually lists an intended use for it. It doesn’t just condemn it. Merely that it was not for man.
The Word of Wisdom doesn’t promise that we will be the fastest runners, but it does promise that we will “run and not be weary” and “walk and not faint.” We often interpret that just because things are listed in the Word of Wisdom that it thus then unhealthy. Perhaps, unwise.
Medicine is always learning new things. I actually listened to a doctor who said that any active faith would actually lower cancer (Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. etc.). He said that although this was proven in a scientific study that you would never see it published in the media because it was “unpopular” to prove that religion was actually healthy.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:29pmPedophile claims discrimination at the TSA
Report Post »http://www.infowars.com/10000-child-porn-images-found-on-ex-tsa-worker’s-computer/
tower7femacamp
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:38pmI guess the guy was not a Mason
Report Post »http://www.rense.com/general61/freem.htm
proudinfidel54
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:40pmBECKISNUTS as with most non believers you mistake mans rules with gods rule, Have you ever heard of free will?? This is how God tests People…Shoot, he even goes as far as to let you believe you come from Monkees or muck talk about a real strech…lol
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:52pmI am curious Beckster…how would you define your belief system?
Report Post »Kankokage
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 12:58pmOh man, I can’t stand the anti-Mormon/anti-Christian arguments. I usually ignore them as banal and anathema to intelligence, but this time I can’t help myself.
I myself have been a Mormon my entire life, but I personally only consider being converted for only about three years. Additionally, I am very near to completing a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and I can safely say that I am an “expert” in most things science, including biology. And guess what: I have no issue with my Mormon faith, and I have no issue with evolutionary science…except for one tiny thing: initialization of life.
Evolutionary science rejects any assistance of any intelligent kind for the initialization of life. By initialization I refer to the development of the first reproducing cell. No matter what you may say about the existence of God, this problem with evolutionary science cannot be overlooked. Natural Selection is by definition a removal of genetic information from the gene pool, so by definition it cannot be responsible for life forming, because you cannot get genetic information out of nothing. Some claim that the first reproducible DNA molecule formed on the surface of a crystal; fair enough, but this leaves out a critical concept in the development of life, that being the minimum of twenty proteins and enzymes being needed for cell stability, DNA reproduction, life-sustaining amino acid control, etc. This is where the problem arises with evolutionary theory; the probability of taking all the materials of a house, shaking it up, and letting it fall to the ground in the form of a perfectly made house is practically impossible – finite, yes, but so minuscule to be considered literally and practically impossible. The complexity of the simplest life forms on Earth has roughly the same probability of randomly forming as the house. RNA – the precursor to DNA according to evolutionary theory – is a highly unstable acid requiring near-constant maintenance by enzymes, most of which are made out of RNA itself. Life randomly forming is by all means impossible, and there are no other means of reproduction aside form RNA and DNA. This is incontrovertible.
When one realizes that the creation story was given to Moses as a revelation, one realizes that the creation story is completely symbolic. It was as Jesus taught in the New Testament: people learn better through parables, through stories of fantastic proportions and situations. This is because humans’ imaginations are far more powerful than we tend to think, and through our imaginations we can learn truths and concepts that can change our lives with far greater effect than sight, hearing, taste, smell, etc. The end-of-the-day truth is that the development of Earth and its residents of every species is exactly as science declares: all developed from the same original organisms over billions of years, and “Adam” was the first **** sapien to whom God revealed himself and his law – thus causing sin and “spiritual death” to enter the Earth. But the first cell had to be made by something.
To say it was mortal aliens is juvenile; if aliens created life, who created them? The only answer that withstands logical critique is that whoever created the first reproducing cells was immortal – lying outside the realm of “life and death” as we know it, something that, while bound to the same natural laws of the universe, has knowledge enough to utilize them in ways mortal beings cannot understand. In other words, only a deity or deities could have started life on this planet, and perhaps all other life-supportive planets.
Does this mean science is false? No, just incomplete. Does this mean religion is false? No, again just incomplete. What many Mormons like me – and very likely Glenn Beck – have begun to realize is that there is no divide between science and religion.
And as far as the Word of Wisdom goes…
Ultimately (and this is for you, Beckisnuts), the whole purpose of the Word of Wisdom that you so thoroughly disparaged is to help us, as humans, maintain control of our emotions, our spirits, and our bodies – since God, as most Christians believe, is in perfect control of His body. Excess in sugar, caffeine, meat, bread – hell, anything in excess is bad for the body. When people have had too much sugar, they have lost control of their bodies and are at the whims of the sugar rushing though their bodies. “Moderation in all things” is the message of the Word of Wisdom – “but these extra things listed here are not good for ingestion into the body: strong drinks (alcoholic beverages), hot drinks like coffee and black teas, tobacco, and mind-altering substances”. There’s really nothing to debate about that list; it’s just plain common sense, that is all.
Thank you for reading.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:04pmDanb – thank you for your insight on the mormon faith.
Jefferson and Beckster, I am enjoying the debate.
Here is a web site that may assist both of you with a better understanding of the issue being debated:
http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89.1-21?lang=eng
Report Post »TylerD
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:07pm@BeckIsNuts You said, “what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. The work of proving a supreme being created everything is all on your side.”
Can’t the same be said about what brought the world into being according to atheists? According to Wikipedia (“Evolution”), “The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred…Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA and the assembly of simple cells.”
So, if scientists can’t prove how it happened – or even come to a general consensus, for that matter – can’t it be equally dismissed? Until someone can prove via the scientific method exactly what happened at the beginning of what we call time, it’s all conjecture. What a Christian would call God, an atheist simply calls something else (whether it be chance or whatnot). Either way, it takes some measure of faith to believe that something caused it (whether that something is God putting it into motion, or nothing magically turning into something). Until you (or science) can prove what you believe could have caused it, can’t we do the same as you and reject your proposal as not having been proven?
Report Post »Republic Under God
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:10pm@Anarcho,
It’s almost as if you conclude that one with Faith cannot be objective or logical. You point out yourself that all who apprach science, regardless on their disposition to the existence of a God/gods or an afterlife. Would it not be reasonable to have a diversity of these biases, ESPECIALLY in an institution founded on the pursuit of knowledge? One of the greatest minds in history, Thomas Jefferson had faith in God. As a lover of knowledge, he saw it fit to question God with boldness. Would it not be proper, that science be a venue for the intellectual pursuit of one looking for God’s fingerprint? We have to rely on the fact that a scientist is truly in pursuit of truth as science is an attempt to gather facts from the natural world and try to understand what they mean.
That aside. It is an institution that receives public funds. To discriminate based on such criteria just won’t fly. Just flip the scenario. What if that university which receives public funding did not receive an applicant because the applicant was known to have atheistic beliefs?
Faith is also a part of everyone’s everyday life. It’s just a matter of where we place it.
Anarcho Capitalist, have you ever read Chris Hitchens?
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:22pmIt’s now common knowledge that these high sugar delights are not only unhealthy, they also have a direct effect on your mood and energy levels.
_________________________
I beg to differ.
Report Post »You obviously had not heard about the man who went on a sugar diet for 70 plus days. Eating NOTHING but junk food.
He kept his calorie intake at a maximum of 1800 calories per day during the duration of his diet.
In 70 days, he lost 18 pounds and lowered ALL his bad levels (cholesterol, glycose, etc) and raised his good cholesterol.
This is by no means a standard, but it blows the FDAs findings out of the water because he disproved everything we’re being told. It boils down to your intake quantities more than your qualities, at least that’s what this small sample of a diet is suggesting.
That said… I trust the gov‘t even less now than I ever had before because even the FDA doesn’t have all the answers.
JJ Coolay
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:24pmMy bad.. not 18 pounds. It was 27 pounds!!
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/11/09/professor-loses-pounds-junk-food-diet/
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:35pmBy the way.. Im not a proponent of this diet, Im just saying that just because an organization like the FDA believes some things are bad based on some studies does not mean they necessarily are just like this man‘s study doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good thing.
Report Post »I don’t think this diet is the best way to live your life regarding food consumption—but I also trust less what our government tells us. This diet may or may not have a long term effect on your body, I don’t know. But short term, his levels did improve.
Islesfordian
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:40pm“You cannot ask people to prove a negative. what i mean is you cannot simply say something is without any evidence and ask people to prove you wrong.”
True enough.
But of course that is not what was going on here. This Christian Scientist was not demanding that others accept what he believed until they could prove him wrong. The others are demanding that he not believe anything that he can’t prove is true, regardless of whether it can be proved wrong or not.
Shall astronomers be forbidden from believing in extra terrestrial life visiting earth? in the existence of a universe BEFORE the Big Bang (which by all definitions can neither be proved nor disproved), or in acupuncture or any other set of “beliefs” that modern science cannot verify? You may say that no evidence suggests the existence of God. Well, by definition the creator of the universe would be separate from the universe and therefore inperceptible to tools made from the universe. But it is as much an act of faith to believe that what we see with our eyes actually exists as it is to believe that there is a cause for ALL that we see. Despite what Hawking says, it is nor more rational to say that the universe caused itself into being than to say an inteligent Being did it. Such a universal CAUSE can best be described as God.
To forbid this type of deductive reasoning makes impossible the inductive method of science, which cannot proceed without a set of basic assumptions.
Report Post »Wayner
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:51pmI’m amazed at the ignorance and pseudo-intelligence of some of you.
Report Post »Think about how intricate your own body is before you go to “theorize” the intricracies of the universe.
This has to be a dark and gloomy life for you knowing there is no hope beyond your miserable existence.
NoDaDAZone
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:51pmWhat a travesty. What an INFECTION. Where does this hatred of religion, knowledge and everything good come from? It all began when the Progressives merged with the Dadas in 1918 and used their ideas (Dada manifesto) as a blueprint for the long-term destruction of culture and civilization to replace it with their communist-socialist-anarchist paradise.
Arm yourselves with knowledge.
Viral Video Dada Expose: http://www.marcrubin.com/dada2.ivnu
Israel National Radio Interview with Marc Rubin on authentic ancient history: http://www.marcrubin.com/judean-eve.ivnu
Report Post »ChillyinAlaska
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 2:06pmOH, you mean like an atheist?
Report Post »Doc_Slammin
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 4:01pm@Anarcho Capitalist: I submit to you that “faith” is, simply, what you believe to be true. Science, in it’s own way, is “faith” in what a person perceives as truth. Likewise, religion is “faith” in what a person perceives as truth.
Report Post »Sinista Mace
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 7:26pmJesus Christ is LUCIFER!!!
JESUS IS LUCIFER
LUCIFER IS JESUS
Report Post »bertr
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:11pm@SINISTA MACE
Report Post »Who told you this? I strongly doubt this came from personal research of the NIV translation. I know you speak of the “morning star” reference but its not going to tear down the christian faith, many of us are aware of this and simply find it perplexing.
Many believe it was Jerome who translated day star as morning star in the septitude because of a theological argument he was having and others believe satan and lucifer are separate enities all together. Needless to say many christians are well aware of this verbal mystery and its not going to shake the faith to mention it in public sorry to say
Liberty or Death 7960
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 11:19pmNotta. Have you not learned? I know you were being sarcastic, right?
Report Post »Timothy
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 6:52amBeckIsNuts
Report Post »You are assuming that the tea they where drinking is the tea they studied, but to base you belief on that alone is just weird. Now, if you would listen to any of these post, you would have came to the conclusion that faith has a lot of science in it, and you will not use your logic against your own belief. It is really funny if you ask me.
BubbaCoop
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 9:27am@ANARCHO CAPITALIST,
ALL scientists who deal with the past have a set notion about the universe based on faith. Some trust the word of the Creator himself, which others have a faith based on human ideas about evolution.
http://amzn.to/frXYq0
http://amzn.to/gBWuI7
Report Post »blizzard
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 9:42amThe entire argument is a moot point. He wasn’t rejected because of his faith. He was rejected because previous lectures, and projects he had done had intertwined science and faith. AKA: He made things up to fit, and was hugely wrong on things he showed in the lectures. It has nothing to do with his faith, unless you consider making things up to fit a view-point in science for God’s benefit faith, and everything to do with objectivity.
Point being: Gaskell is an evolution-denier. He’s an old-earth creationist, and a theistic evolutionist who looks favorably on Intelligent Design creationism.
Gaskell’s lecture/study in question if you want to read it: http://incolor.inetnebr.com/gaskell/Martin_Gaskell_Bible_Astronomy.html
“Another geology professor, Shelly Steiner, wrote that UK [University of Kentucky] should no more hire an astronomer skeptical of evolution than “a biologist who believed that the sun revolved around the Earth.”"
It doesn’t matter that he was qualified for the job, because when it comes to hiring, you have to be able to respect your colleagues. Would you, as a scientist, hire someone that believed that space didn’t exist, and that the Earth was flat up and down, and that we were covered in a dome? Beyond that, Gaskell has made it abundantly clear that he’s not interested in just talking about his field, he wants to bring his theology into the scientific debate, and has done so many times in the past.
That‘s why he didn’t get hired. His lawsuit is going to fail without even a hiccup.
Report Post »racialcoward
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 10:45pmMOSLEMS BELIEVE IN CREATION.
Would a Moslem applicant have been denied the job? Its only Christians who a persecuted for their religion. A Moslem would not have been treated like this because Obama is Moslem.
Report Post »