Christian Persecution

Scientist Alleges Religious Discrimination in Kentucky

December 17, 2010

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."

Evolution and the Bible are Diametrically Opposed, So It's Difficult for a Scientist to be a Christian If He Is Funded by the Government or Academia

Teaching evolution as scientific fact, which would just be taken for granted at many non-Christian colleges and universities, raises all kinds of delicate issues at Christian colleges. Some professors, with support from prominent scientists, are trying to defend the teaching of evolution and to make it safe for those who teach biology and the Bible to talk about ways in which belief in evolution need not represent an abandonment of faith.

October 14, 2009

Kyle Simpson (Inside Higher Ed) - Whenever I hear someone claiming that the theory of evolution can co-exist with the Bible's story of creation, I always bristle. To me, if someone believes that, it's because:

a) they don't understand the Bible's story
b) they don't understand evolution
c) both.

It's quite simple to explain why the two are diametrically opposed, and always will be.

The Bible states that God created everything that was to be created, and then mankind, and then, after all of creation was done, mankind sinned, and that was when sin first entered the world. There is no disputing this order of events, according to the Bible; it's black and white. The Bible is also quite clear on the fact that sin = death. Therefore, death did NOT enter the world until mankind sinned. There are lots of verses to be cited to support this. It cannot be argued that sin/death were in the world before "the fall." If you do, you don't understand the Bible and the reason why Jesus came to save mankind.

Now, with evolution, at least macro evolution, it's based on a simple principle: selective adaptation. This means that little genetic mutations, in response to environmental factors, occur in a generation, and the beneficial ones survive to the next generation, and so on, through millions of years. Again, when you boil down evolution, it comes down to this simple concept: death, generation after generation, for millions of years, is how we got the diverse speciation we see in today's world.

So, evolution teaches that death was an integral part of creation. The Bible teaches that life was an integral part of creation, and sin/death did not enter in until after creation was done. Therefore, God did NOT use evolution (death) to create this world.

You can choose to believe in evolution. Or in the Bible. Or in something else entirely (aliens, etc). But you cannot mix the Bible and evolution; they are fundamentally opposite at the core. Any attempt to say otherwise is simply deception, or at least ignorance of one or both concepts.

Thank You Kyle Simpson

April 10, 2010

Ken Moyer (Inside Higher Ed) - The rebellion to God and His word recorded here is instructive. The only one who has captured the debate is Kyle Simpson, who seems to understand that the historicity of the Genesis record is foundational to all orthodox Christian doctrine and not in any way compatible with evolutionism. The intellectual pride of the academic elite is truly breathtaking in its reliance upon secular assumptions, humanistic reasoning and "just so" stories about the past. God has all the information and claims that his recorded word is flawless (Psalms). Man knows next to nothing about all there is to know. Gee, where should I put my trust? In the words of God or the words of men?

Believing in God and Evolution

October 15, 2009

Wayne (Inside Higher Ed) - Dr. Francis Collins is lionized because he claims to be a Christian and a scientist. In an address in my home town he made this statement:

"They (scientists) start with the ASSUMPTION that there was an initial organism with DNA and a molecule that enabled reproduction."

He offered no opinion as to where that 'organism' came from or how it got started. It is a very good declaration of faith, but very bad science.

He also said " the beginnings of life is in disarray" (read: they don't have a clue).

Applying a little common sense, if your theory can't supply a plausible beginning for life, all the "scientific evidence" for evolution falls apart. In addition, the so-called 'scientific evidence' depends entirely on the ASSUMPTION that evolution occurred. Remove that assumption and the 'scientific evidence' is only astute observations about how our physical world works.

Christians who promote evolution don't seem to realize that they are dishonoring the Lord Jesus Christ who they claim to worship. He is the Creator proclaimed in the New Testament. ( John 1:3, Eph. 3:9, Col. 1:16, 11 Peter 3: 5-6). He spoke of Adam and Eve being created "in the beginning" (Matt. 19:4). Evolution theory puts them very close to the end of the process. If evolution is true, Jesus must have been either ignorant or an outright deceiver, simply parroting the misguided ideas of all the Old Testament prophets.

Growing scientific knowledge of the intricacies and beauty of life, the interdependency of discrete forms of life, the mysteries of bird and bat navigation, the wonder of the human body with its many systems (any one of these systems malfunctioning spells either death or a life of invalidity) --evolutionists simply cannot explain with their 'time and chance' idea.

Consider the eye. Evolutionists are struggling to construct a plausible sequence for it's evolution. But, without the neural connections to the brain the eye is useless. And, without the brain, eye and the neural connections to the limbs, our body would be simply a glob of quivering matter. Evolutionists can compose 'just so' stories to 'explain' these things but their stories are riddled with "could, might, possibly, seems to, etc. The "fact" of evolution rests on a very shaky foundation.