Final Thoughts (for now) on “The Gaskell Affair”

December 17th, 2010

OK, I’ve already written two posts on this, an initial one with a lot of links and a follow-up after I’d gathered more information for myself.   I’ve continued to read some documents, in particular several hundred pages of depositions.   Maybe only several hundred…there are thousands there, and depositions are boring mostly.

My opinions have evolved a little as I’ve taken in more information.   I had some biases that led to some mistaken impressions that weren’t totally fair, and, on the other side, have some criticisms to make where I previously gave the benefit of the doubt.

To briefly recap, Martin Gaskell, an astronomer I know personally and whose work I admire, has sued the University of Kentucky over religious discrimination over a job as an observatory director that he applied for.

After reading Martin Gaskell’s deposition in greater detail, and assuming Martin is telling the complete truth about everything, he was right to sue.   In particular, he was told by someone in the know that he was sabotaged primarily by the biology department who was asked to weigh in on notes that Martin hands out in conjunction with a talk on astronomy and the bible.   The claim is that they shouldn’t hire a “Christian.”

I find that claim implausible, unfortunately.   If they’d said “Creationist” I could believe it.

This is hearsay, and I didn’t see corroboration in other depositions.   I saw a lot of   “I can’t recall” and “I don’t really know about biology or creationism.”   Maybe circling the wagons, maybe honest sometimes.   If Martin can’t get corroboration, I think he’ll lose.

Now, Martin also seems confused to me about the application of science to evolution and strays, not much, but definitely, from good science.   He seems to criticize mainstream biology for not entertaining supernatural elements may be involved, all the while accepting most of the basics of evolution.   He unfortunately also points to books and articles by Intelligent Design proponents for people who want to know what problems evolution has.   That’s totally bogus crap, and Martin hides behind his ignorance of evolution to justify it.   That would concern me if I were hiring.

Martin seems to have a problem understanding that while his religious views can’t be a factor in deciding not to hire him, when they leak over into science and become part of his scientific views, they’re totally fair game.   He doesn’t seem to understand that when he makes a religious criticism of science, he’s not making just a religious statement but a statement of his own scientific acumen.

So-called “theistic evolution” and intelligent design arguments he suggests people look at, are either bad science, or not science at all pretending to be science.

Like most religious scientists, Martin compartmentalizes.   He’s a really good astronomer and practices good science in astronomy.   Apparently in biology, something he doesn’t know much about, he relaxes his scientific principles.   Bad Martin.   I bet he would feel uncomfortable with a evangelical biologist who was fine with mainstream evolution, but wanted “theistic cosmology” and pointed at “problems” with the Big Bang and suggested folks read some religiously motivated critics.

On the other hand…I was unfair to Martin.   His position at Nebraska included no research component.   He was doing a great job with his teaching and doing his “high-powered” research in his spare time.   He also set up and ran an observatory very much like the one at Kentucky and was already very experienced with the duties required for the job.   He really was by far the top applicant, even if he’s something of an overachiever.

Laws designed to prevent discrimination helped contribute to the problems here.   Kentucky brought up the topic of Martin’s beliefs concerning evolution and how it might affect his outreach activities (fair game in my opinion since Martin had spoken publicly at KY in the past and had online materials about it), but didn’t feel like they could explore it fully.   Martin felt like they weren’t allowed to consider it at all and tried to evade the topic completely.   Bad deal.

I think they should have hired Martin, and that Martin should have agreed not to talk about evolution (which he is not an expert on) as part of his duties as Observatory Director.   I think that would have been agreeable.   The PR issue could have been handled by asking Martin to state that he’s not a creationist, which he isn’t strictly speaking, if it comes up.

It’s a shame.   This should have been a win-win.   Now it’s going to be a lose-lose.   Some will see Kentucky as a discriminatory place.   Some will see Martin as a creationist and bad scientist.

I think that Kentucky was concerned about Martin’s not creationist but less than perfect views on evolution, not his religion.   I think that Martin could have eased a lot of their concerns but didn’t think it was a topic he should discuss with them at all, conflating science and religion (as he does in his talk/notes).   Some folks involved probably freaked a bit, not distinguishing between young-Earth creationist and Martin’s almost mainstream position that is similar to that of some Christian biologists like Francis Collins (who I think is full of crap trying to make his religion scientific, but he’s head of the NIH and Martin is SOL).

I’ll be watching how the court case goes in February and reserve the right to change my opinion as other details may emerge there.

I can’t tell you how weird this is, personally knowing so many of the participants personally.   Well, no matter what happens I anticipate continuing to work with everyone scientifically in the future.   I imagine they can’t or won’t talk about the case now, but I bet there will be a few stories circulating after the fact.

OK, more astronomy and science fiction posts again in the near future, and a little less of this until February…

Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , ,

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.