Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nope, I read all that and understood it perfectly.
I'm just not one to jump to conclusions based on hearsay simply because of a built in confirmation bias.
Nope, I read all that and understood it perfectly.
I'm just not one to jump to conclusions based on hearsay simply because of a built in confirmation bias.
Ah...time to move on to more intelligent poster's, I'm afraid. You not only couldn't read the article, you can't read my posts and understand them either. It is clear from my posts that I don't have a conclusion about the case. There isn't enough information in the article to form one. You are obviously a victim of your own biases here and think you see things that you really don't in everyone else's words.
Christian) Scientist alleges religious discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the guy believes that the earth is 5,000 years old or some such nonsense then he has no business being in charge of or even working at an observatory. I would think a truly OPEN mind would be a requirement for the job.
I read the same article and concluded his objectivity is questionable.
Go figure.
What did you read in the article, viewed entirely without your obvious personal bias, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that his objectivity is questionable?
The fastest horse.
Any scientist who gets on a religious soapbox isn't a scientist I trust to be objective.
Simple as that.
Christian) Scientist alleges religious discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the guy believes that the earth is 5,000 years old or some such nonsense then he has no business being in charge of or even working at an observatory. I would think a truly OPEN mind would be a requirement for the job.
When did this guy get up on a religious soapbox?
What problems do you have with Gregory Mendel's seminal works in genetics?
What exactly is it about William Kelvin's belief in Old Earth creation that disqualifies him as a physicist?
What is it about Max Planck's belief in an almighty, omnipotent, and beneficent God that makes his work in quantum physics less valuable?
It seems to me that the problem here is not his beliefs but your bias about those beliefs. It is entirely possible to be a Christian and be a scientist.
What did you read in the article, viewed entirely without your obvious personal bias, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that his objectivity is questionable?
The fastest horse.
Any scientist who gets on a religious soapbox isn't a scientist I trust to be objective.
Simple as that.
When did this guy get up on a religious soapbox?
What problems do you have with Gregory Mendel's seminal works in genetics?
What exactly is it about William Kelvin's belief in Old Earth creation that disqualifies him as a physicist?
What is it about Max Planck's belief in an almighty, omnipotent, and beneficent God that makes his work in quantum physics less valuable?
It seems to me that the problem here is not his beliefs but your bias about those beliefs. It is entirely possible to be a Christian and be a scientist.
So he gave a lecture AT the school and when he was asked about it he claimed it was inappropriate to ask him about it?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."
He wasn't "excluded." He was considered for the job and didn't get it.
Boo frickin hoo.
Are you suggesting we need affirmative actions quotas for Christian scientists now?
You clearly didn't understand the story you linked.
Nope, I read all that and understood it perfectly.
I'm just not one to jump to conclusions based on hearsay simply because of a built in confirmation bias.
Ah...time to move on to more intelligent poster's, I'm afraid. You not only couldn't read the article, you can't read my posts and understand them either. It is clear from my posts that I don't have a conclusion about the case. There isn't enough information in the article to form one. You are obviously a victim of your own biases here and think you see things that you really don't in everyone else's words.
When did this guy get up on a religious soapbox?
What problems do you have with Gregory Mendel's seminal works in genetics?
What exactly is it about William Kelvin's belief in Old Earth creation that disqualifies him as a physicist?
What is it about Max Planck's belief in an almighty, omnipotent, and beneficent God that makes his work in quantum physics less valuable?
It seems to me that the problem here is not his beliefs but your bias about those beliefs. It is entirely possible to be a Christian and be a scientist.
I worked for a while as a research scientist in a couple of labs that studied evolutionary biology in one form or another. I was the only non-religious person in the labs. Many Ph.D. researchers who firmly believe in evolution and study it are also Christian.
When did this guy get up on a religious soapbox?
What problems do you have with Gregory Mendel's seminal works in genetics?
What exactly is it about William Kelvin's belief in Old Earth creation that disqualifies him as a physicist?
What is it about Max Planck's belief in an almighty, omnipotent, and beneficent God that makes his work in quantum physics less valuable?
It seems to me that the problem here is not his beliefs but your bias about those beliefs. It is entirely possible to be a Christian and be a scientist.
I worked for a while as a research scientist in a couple of labs that studied evolutionary biology in one form or another. I was the only non-religious person in the labs. Many Ph.D. researchers who firmly believe in evolution and study it are also Christian.
Many?
Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
What you find is that as scientists get older, their belief in the occult diminishes. And check out the likely field with magical beliefs, chemistry. The one science most likely never to touch on the "occult" unless you can somehow tie in "alchemy".
The American Association for the Advancement of Science,
"Triple A-S" (AAAS), is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. In addition to organizing membership activities, AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide.
I worked for a while as a research scientist in a couple of labs that studied evolutionary biology in one form or another. I was the only non-religious person in the labs. Many Ph.D. researchers who firmly believe in evolution and study it are also Christian.
Many?
Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
What you find is that as scientists get older, their belief in the occult diminishes. And check out the likely field with magical beliefs, chemistry. The one science most likely never to touch on the "occult" unless you can somehow tie in "alchemy".
Again rdean, the AAAS is not a science group, nor is it a group of scientists.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science,
"Triple A-S" (AAAS), is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. In addition to organizing membership activities, AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide.
AAAS - What is AAAS?
I do admire your consistency though.
Many?
Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
What you find is that as scientists get older, their belief in the occult diminishes. And check out the likely field with magical beliefs, chemistry. The one science most likely never to touch on the "occult" unless you can somehow tie in "alchemy".
Again rdean, the AAAS is not a science group, nor is it a group of scientists.
AAAS - What is AAAS?The American Association for the Advancement of Science,
"Triple A-S" (AAAS), is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. In addition to organizing membership activities, AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide.
I do admire your consistency though.
You right wingers are hilariously stupid. You only believe what you want to believe. You write as if they looked up the Boy Scouts, pick a thousand random names, based their entire survey on those names and called it "science".
You can actually read their methodology here:
Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: About the Survey - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
For one, the interviews were conducted from May 1 to June 14, 2009 with members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International.
So I guess that means "Princeton" is also too "stupid" to identify a "scientist"? They obviously don't have a "clue", but you do? Now THAT'S funny.
They used much less than 10,000 out of more than a million members. Why? Because you don't have to be a scientist to be a member, but I suspect the majority of scientists ARE members. I bet they have very, very FEW Republicans, for obvious reasons.
You guys embarrass yourselves believing everyone is stupid except you. Why? Because they "report" something important that you don't want to hear. Why? Because it points out the issues with your failed ideology of ignorance and superstition.
Fewer Americans today (27%) offer scientific achievements as one of the countrys most important achievements than did so a decade ago (47%).
Wanna bet the "majority" of those are Republicans. Gawd, the majority actually believe in "magical creation".
Each person sampled was mailed a letter on stationery with logos of both the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and AAAS. The letter was signed by Andrew Kohut, President of the Pew Research Center and Alan I. Leshner, Chief Executive Officer of AAAS. These letters were intended to introduce the survey to prospective respondents, describe the nature and purpose of the survey and encourage participation in the survey. The advance letter contained a URL and a password for a secure website where the survey could be completed. The letter also included a toll-free number for respondents to call if they had questions.
Subsequent requests to complete the survey were sent to those who had not yet responded. These requests were sent by email for those who could be contacted this way (three e-mail reminders were sent) and by postal mail for members who had told AAAS they preferred not be contacted by e-mail (a postcard and letter reminder were sent).
A total of 1,411 of the 5,816 sampled members in the e-mail group completed the interview for a response rate of 24%. In the mail group, 1,122 members of the 4,182 sampled completed the survey for a response rate of 27%. The overall response rate for the study was 25% (2,533 completes/9,998 sampled members). Nearly all respondents completed the survey online; however, a very small number requested to complete the survey in another mode; twenty interviews were completed by telephone.
Nonresponse in surveys can produce biases in survey-derived estimates because participation may vary for subgroups of a population, who may differ on questions of substantive interest. In order to correct for these biases, weighting is often employed.
In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.
Idiot. This country was founded on Christian principles, evolution has not been proven, and life is too complicated to hve just happened. There is plenty of proof of creationism. Even Darwin said that the THEORY of evolution could not be proven.If the American right wing wants to be stupid, go for it. Just don't infect the rest of the nation with that religious nonsense.
6% of scientists are Republican for a good reason. Because most Republicans left "reason" at the "alter".
Yeah it shows that scientists are just tools for the dimwit tree hugger society.But props for immediately chiming in with your favorite stat rdean.
My "favorite" stat is, "90% of the Republican Party is white and mostly Christian". My SECOND favorite is "Only 6% of scientists" are Republican.
Believe me, it shows.
The article stated that his qualifications were outstanding. The only problem was a paper he wrote? He was passed over clearly based on his religion.I have no problem with the university passing him over based on concerns about his scientific objectivity.
I would've done the same.
Did they pass him over because of concerns about his objectivity or because they are biased against Christians? Unless they can sho something in his published work that supports their concerns about the lack of objectivity I do not seem them justifying it that way.
Actually, if you want to take his side on this, it's up to you (really him) to show that it was merely a bias against Christians.
I'd wager they have plenty of Christians working at UK so good luck with that.
The article stated that his qualifications were outstanding. The only problem was a paper he wrote? He was passed over clearly based on his religion.Did they pass him over because of concerns about his objectivity or because they are biased against Christians? Unless they can sho something in his published work that supports their concerns about the lack of objectivity I do not seem them justifying it that way.
Actually, if you want to take his side on this, it's up to you (really him) to show that it was merely a bias against Christians.
I'd wager they have plenty of Christians working at UK so good luck with that.
