tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6612408794001483069.post3595430610790134933..comments2023-04-13T11:07:00.569-05:00Comments on The Scholar Redeemer: Gaskell vs. UK #2: The Louisville Courier-JournalRobb Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01444784088593414298noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6612408794001483069.post-75606600101572907152010-12-17T23:55:15.676-06:002010-12-17T23:55:15.676-06:00I wish Anonymous would reference their material.
...I wish Anonymous would reference their material.<br /><br />If you go on to National Center for Science Education webite Gaskell v UK court cast (http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/c-martin-gaskell-v-university-kentucky) you can read the dispositions already taken.<br /><br />I have been reading the disposition of UK Equal Opportunity Officer, Patty Bender. She outlines an investigation she undertook in 2007 over the interview process for the director of the UK Observatory. Gaskell failed for two reasons. The first is that during his employment with the University of Nebraska he did not comply with behaviours required by the University of Kentucky. The other is that he Gaskell has not compartmentalise his views into his scientific belief and his religious belief. Indeed, he has tried to bring them together. He does not want to be some philosophical schizophrenic. No evidence has been given that Gaskell religious views have interfered with the methodological naturalistic conclusions of his scientific investigations.<br /><br />After reading Gaskell’s speaking notes, “Modern Astronomy, the Bible and Creation”, are not a coherent essay. That is why I call them speaking notes. The fact that these notes are continually updated suggests that Gaskell’s views are developing. The version I have suggests he needs to some deeper research the relationship of Christian theology and science. He needs to go outside his own tradition too. His use of the term, “world view” within the ‘Conclusion’ section of the speaking notes suggests dominion theology. That could raise questions of integrity.<br /><br />Please note, I am an Australian, living in Australia and have little knowledge of US academic traditions.Michael Boswellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6612408794001483069.post-76316661613791870132010-12-15T03:37:43.689-06:002010-12-15T03:37:43.689-06:00The issue I have with Gaskell's use of the ter...The issue I have with Gaskell's use of the term "problem" in the quoted text is that he really uses it in two ways. The first is equivalent to questions, the subject of current research. His second use of the term suggests flaws, or things incorrect about the theory. The things that Intelligent Design critics call out as "problems" -- meaning flaws -- are usually not flaws. Gaskell's big problem with evolution seems to be keeping out supernatural explanations, and that is a problem with his understanding of the tenets of science. Science seeks natural explanations. In pursuing this with the arguments he has, I agree, that he has tarnished his scientific credibility, something that would be problematic for the Observatory Director job.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com