College Guide
Blog
In 1633 the Roman Inquisition convicted Galileo Galilei (right) of heresy for publishing scientific information arguing that the earth revolved around the sun, “which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture.”
He was forced to recant his position and his entire body of work. He was under house arrest for the rest of his life. Virtually the entire world, even very religious people, however, eventually became convinced of the validity of Galileo’s argument, which forms the basis for contemporary astronomy.
This makes the predicament of astronomer Martin Gaskell all the more interesting. According to a piece by Peter Smith in the Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal:
No one denies that… Gaskell was the leading candidate for the founding director of a new observatory at the University of Kentucky in 2007 — until his writings on evolution came to light.
Gaskell had given lectures to campus religious groups around the country in which he said that while he has no problem reconciling the Bible with the theory of evolution, he believes the theory has major flaws. And he recommended students read theory critics in the intelligent-design movement.
Now a federal judge says Gaskell has a right to a jury trial over his allegation that he lost the job because he is a Christian and “potentially evangelical.”
U.S. Senior District Judge Karl S. Forester of the Eastern District of Kentucky ruled that Gaskell may now have a trial. Gaskell argues that University of Kentucky violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans on employment discrimination on the basis of religion.
The university argues that not hiring someone because he expresses a belief in evolution is entirely valid. Presumably this is because the school might then have some reason to question Gaskell’s belief in the scientific method or just plain rationality.
As a scientific principle, evolution in the twenty-first century occupies roughly the same place that heliocentrism did in the seventeenth: unproven, but widely accepted among educated people.
Still, don’t expect this trial to matter much, either for employment law or the acceptance of the theory itself. According to popular legend, Galileo was forced by his trail to proclaim that he’d been wrong and the earth, indeed, was the center of the universe but he muttered “Eppur si muove ( And yet it moves)” as he was lead away.
The Church allowed some of Galileo’s works to be published in 1718 and officially stopped opposing heliocentrism in 1835.
Gaskell first began to study astronomy as an undergraduate at the University of Edinburgh in the 1970s. [Image via]
Facebook
Twitter
ElOceanografo on December 14, 2010 12:32 PM:
"Unproven?" Well, maybe, in the sense that science can't *absolutely* prove anything. But do you have any idea how much evidence there is backing up the theory of evolution by natural selection? There's mountains. In some cases, we can actually observe it happening. (Hello, drug-resistant bacteria!)
Galileo's case did teach us that the truth doesn't always jive with the dominant paradigm. But the converse is not necessarily true: just because something flies in the face of conventional wisdom does not make it the truth.
tony Blck on December 14, 2010 5:45 PM:
Kentucky is a "Right to Work" state, which means you can be let go/dismissed/fired, etc., for no reason whatsoever. Just ask several thousand other people in the state...
libfreak48 on December 14, 2010 7:06 PM:
This is astronomy, not biology. If it doesn't impact his field there's no reason not to give him the job. If you lack that much confidence in the theory of evolution being correct, maybe you're the one who needs to rethink it.
seriously on December 14, 2010 7:14 PM:
"As a scientific principle, evolution in the twenty-first century occupies roughly the same place that heliocentrism did in the seventeenth: unproven, but widely accepted among educated people."
OK, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt--on what do you base this statement? To call evolution "unproven" is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of science, the nature of proof, and the nature of evolution.
Daniel on December 14, 2010 7:50 PM:
Unproven doesn't mean "in doubt."
Evolution is not proven and, in fact, never can be, because it's not really falsifiable. But that's not a problem. Creationists have exploited this point extensively, but that's stupid. Evolution is still the only valid scientific theory.
I admit that comparing it to heliocentrism was a little misguided, however. Twenty-first century and seventeenth century scientific standards is probably unfair since it's pretty much apples to oranges.
Evolution is actually much more widely accepted and justified now than heliocentrism was in the 17th century.
Doctor Cleveland on December 14, 2010 9:03 PM:
Actually, astronomy does deal directly with questions that are crucial to the natural-selection theory of evolution (and when we talk about the "theory of evolution," we generally mean Darwin's model of natural selection).
The natural-selection theory holds that evolution works through a series of basically random genetic variations; over time, environmental pressures, and the competition to survive and reproduce, impose order on these random variations. Advantageous genes survive and proliferate; less advantageous ones do not.
This process can eventually produce stupendously complicated organisms like tigers, trees, and human beings, even starting from a pre-cellular soup. But it takes a *prodigiously* long time. The first few million years is just gearing up. A couple hundred million years isn't nearly enough. Most estimates involve billions of years. And whether or not there's been enough time for evolution to have taken place depends on the life span of stars. Indeed, one old objection to Darwin's theory was that there hadn't been time for evolution, because the sun could only be X many thousands of years old. Later models in which the sun is about 5 billion years old removes that objection.
All of this to say: a creationist astronomer has ample opportunity for scientific mischief.
Barry on December 14, 2010 9:18 PM:
"Evolution is not proven and, in fact, never can be, because it's not really falsifiable"
Incorrect. Please go to PZ Myer's blog and ask him.
Ellis on December 14, 2010 10:25 PM:
"As a scientific principle, evolution in the twenty-first century occupies roughly the same place that heliocentrism did in the seventeenth: unproven, but widely accepted among educated people."
Oh, no, not this nonsense again.
Apparently, you haven't read anything by a knowledgeable person (like, you know, a biologist) on the subject of evolution. I can assure you, they consider "evolution" very much proven. Does that mean every possible question has been answered? No, of course not.
Wait, I think I hear Stephen J. Gould rolling over in this grave.
Uityyy on December 14, 2010 11:17 PM:
An interesting thing about this case is that Dr. Gaskell isn't even speaking against evolution. His notes on Modern Astronomy, the Bible and Creation express support for the theory while noting that there is still room for further research. His notes survey different ways in which Christians and others have related Genesis 1 to modern science.
rachelrachel on December 14, 2010 11:43 PM:
In the controversial handout, Gaskell is not speaking against evolution or even expressing doubt that evolution occurs. And he doesn't really say, "the theory has major flaws." What he says is this:
"It is true that there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory (a good thing or else many biologists and geologists would be out of a job) and that these problems are bigger than is usually made out in introductory geology/biology courses,"
Which should not be at all controversial. If there weren't problems in evolutionary theory, nobody would have anything to publish papers about. And of course the problems are much bigger than what you usually see in those dumbed-down intro courses.
He encourages people to read books from intelligent design theorists, which of anybody should do if they want to be knowledgeable on the topic. It's always good to read divergent viewpoints, and it's bizarre to hear people who are supposed to be educators objecting. He lays out a lot of different viewpoints that people have, and doesn't claim that he supports that.
There's nothing wrong with any of this stuff, unless you think it's wrong for a scientist to give lectures on religious topics. If this is why he's being passed over for the job, it sounds like there's a plausible case of religious discrimination.
Joe Buck on December 15, 2010 12:01 AM:
Evolution is about as proven as anything can be. The whole tree of life can be laid out by DNA analysis without regard to fossils. There is evidence in every one of our cells that a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans caught a retrovirus, which left a distinctive marker of viral DNA in our chromosomes.
Buck Turgidson on December 15, 2010 3:40 AM:
This case is very similar to another in Massachusetts. A Woods Hole marine biologist was not rehired ostensibly because he was a creationist. He went to court with the same claim and got shot down--but the decision was largely based on the fact that his disbelief of evolution and corresponding paleontology would significantly interfere with his work. It's not clear that a federal court in Kentucky would necessarily come to the same conclusion. So the real question is, did the judge's decision hinge on the differences between the Woods Hole case and this one or simply on the fact that this a different venue and evangelical claims of discrimination get more deference in Kentucky. I strongly suspect the latter.
But the actual reason in both cases is the same--in order to be promoted, especially to an executive position, the person has to command respect of his peers--at least, as a scientist. In fact, quite often, scientific institutions ignore personal characteristics that may undermine such respect. What they almost never do is ignore the scientific credentials. In both of these cases, the issue goes to scientific credibility, not personal characteristics. And this is the crux of the matter--it's not religious discrimination if the disagreement is about science. There is far too much emphasis being placed on the tension between evolution and ID/Creationism. The problems with ID/Creationism are not limited to evolution. It is just as damaging for an astronomer as it is for a biologist. If UK is basing its argument entirely on the guy's views on evolution, it is making a serious mistake. It's not about his views of evolution--it's about his subscription to creationism.
Buck Turgidson on December 15, 2010 3:58 AM:
@rachelrachel
Sorry, no! ID is pure quackery and there is no reason to dip your toe into that vat of acid. If you want to understand modern medicine, is it necessary to read about the post-medieval medical opinions that centered on blood-letting and the color of the stool?
The claim that "these problems are bigger than is usually made out in introductory geology/biology courses" is simply vacuous. Introductory courses are meant to tell the students about the problems in the field--in fact, the introductory courses usually shy away from "problems"--it's not important whether it's "geology/biology" courses or courses in organic chemistry, astronomy, physics, or even mathematics. There is nothing wrong with anyone giving lectures on religious topics or to religious groups. But if one tells his audience that there is much scientific information to glean from texts on intelligent design, while he may not be a blithering idiot, he's unsuited for an executive scientific position.
Having said this, the line may be a bit more blurred if the "executive position" amounts to little more than paper pushing. This is why it was less controversial (although IMO still wrong) to appoint a creationist as the Director of the NIH. Some liberals joined in the opinion that opposition to his candidacy did amount to religious discrimination. This is an opinion I do not share because the Director makes decisions and presents options on policy and direction the NIH-sponsored research does or should take. Having a creationist in charge limits the policy options, unless he has no problems presenting research opinions and policy directions with which he disagrees.
Edward M Baum on December 15, 2010 7:01 AM:
Kentucky?
I'm shocked, truly shocked.
mark on December 15, 2010 12:50 PM:
History repeats itself again and again and...Remember Gullermo Gonzalez, astronomer at Iowa State University, who was denied tenure? (See, eg, http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/well-that-didnt-1.html )