ASA Voices » Randy Isaac

Limits of Academic Freedom?

Randy Isaac — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:17:42 +0000

The question of limits to academic freedom is as old as academia itself and will likely never be settled. But it should be openly discussed so that through the process of discussion we understand the issues better. Two recent news items that have been discussed on this blog are noteworthy. One was the case of Martin Gaskell and the role his faith allegedly played in the decision by the U of Kentucky not to offer him a position for which he was apparently the best qualified. The other is the ongoing saga of the implications of the study of human ancestry.
It would be hard to argue that there should be no limits whatsoever to academic freedom. For a faith-based institution, it seems reasonable to exclude those whose views are explicitly in opposition to the commitment of the institution. For public institutions, one would certainly expect no limitations based on faith but one could argue about extreme positions harmful to society.
While we may expect adherence to a statement of faith, a valid question arises in the context of science and faith. Is it ever right for a statement of faith to constrain what a scientist is allowed to observe? Setting aside any philosophical implications that scientists might draw from the observation, should academic freedom in any faith-based institution at least include freedom of observation? Granted, no observation is paradigm-free and we would expect a paradigm consistent with that of established western science.
In the examples cited above, Gaskell was apparently denied a position because of fear that his faith might erroneously affect his scientific observation and interpretation, despite evidence to the contrary. In the search for historical Adam and Eve, others have been called to account for seeking ways of dealing with conflicts between a statement of faith and growing scientific data.
What is your experience? What degree of academic freedom do you have in your institution? Are there limits? If so, are they reasonable in the field of science and faith?

Did God Create the Universe?

Randy Isaac — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:28:17 +0000

Sunday night the Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel simulcast a CuriosityTV special on Stephen Hawking’s opinion of whether God created the universe, based on his book The Grand Design. The “eye of Hawking” seemed to pierce the depths of the universe as he pondered the meaning of existence.
Hawking concludes that God was not needed to create the universe. His reasoning is not hard to follow. First, he says that we know from quantum physics that something can be created from nothing, as long as anti-something is created with it so that the total is still nothing. Hence, our universe adds up to nothing when summed up with an anti-universe somewhere and therefore needs no creator. Secondly, he says time ceases to exist at the big bang and since there is no time, there is no room for God. Nothing can exist when time ceases to exist. Thirdly, he says we see a continuous chain of causal effects, leaving no causal gap for God to fill.
By his definition of God, he may have a point. But is that the God we Christians worship? In the followup Creation conversation, aired immediately following the CuriosityTV program, Christians such as John Haught and Jennifer Wiseman point out that the Christian view of God is quite different. God is the source of all laws of nature, not a solution to a gap in those laws. He is beyond time and not constrained by time. A universe where matter and anti-matter can appear is one that is created and sustained by God.
Sean Carroll asks John Haught at one point: “What would the universe look like if God didn’t exist?” Haught: “Then the universe would not exist!” Carroll: “So God necessarily exists?” Haught: “Yes!”
That pretty well sums it up.

Share the impact that ASA has had on you

Randy Isaac — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:52:35 +0000

We would like to hear from you about the way in which ASA has helped you. Please share your thoughts by submitting a comment or sending an email to “bohemian at wendeeholtcamp dot com”. Help us by answering one or more of these questions:

• How has ASA made an impact in your life, your teaching, your career, your thought process regarding theology or faith, the Bible, your relationship with God, or anything else?
• Was here ever an article on the ASA website, in the God & Nature e-zine, or in the Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith journal that influenced your thinking or teaching? How?
• Do you recall any stories from one of the ASA annual conferences that was significant – a talk you heard or a connection you made that you wouldn’t have otherwise that influenced your career or your faith?
• How have you seen ASA impact culture in positive ways over the years?
• What role do you see the ASA playing in the future, and what role does it fill that other organizations don’t?

The Search for the Historical Adam

Randy Isaac — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:15:21 +0000

ASA has long been at the forefront of major developing trends in issues of science and Christian faith. Part of our mission is to explore and understand new scientific advances and their implications for our faith. Since 1954, more than two dozen articles have appeared in our journal where “Adam” appears in the title. In the last decade, the human genome project has catapulted the issue of historical Adam and Eve to the forefront. The cover story of the June 2011 issue of Christianity Today describes “The Search for the Historical Adam,” leaning heavily on key publications and talks from the ASA as well as the BioLogos Foundation.

Our goal continues to be to provide a forum for active discussion on seminal topics. The issue of historical Adam and Eve is extremely important to all of us. Scientific data now seem to dispel any alternative theories allowing for a one-couple human ancestry from the biological perspective. How does this impact our faith?

We encourage active and open discussion in this forum by ASA members to reflect the wide spectrum of views within our membership even as we are united in the body of Christ.

Specifically, members are encouraged to use this forum to comment on the following issues:

Is your own understanding of the Bible in conflict with the scientific views of the origin of humans? Your church’s? How are you dealing with it?
What actions do you feel are needed to make progress in this issue? What role can ASA play in bringing clarity to this issue?

Faith-Based Hiring?

Randy Isaac — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:23:03 +0000

Astronomer Martin Gaskell has sued the University of Kentucky for discrimination based on religious faith when, in 2007, they bypassed him in favor of someone else to head their observatory. According to the NYTimes, the lawsuit alleges that Gaskell was denied the position on the basis of his religious beliefs. Martin and his wife have been long-time members of ASA. Though we do not have access to all relevant documents and evidence in order to make a judgment on the legal merits of this particular case, we at ASA are deeply concerned about the tendency toward, and the perception of, religious discrimination in hiring for scientific positions and in funding of research grants. We support Martin in his effort to clear the record in his case.
Several issues come to mind. First is the influence of faith as a factor in hiring decisions for science positions. In the case of private institutions whose mission involves a commitment to a statement of faith, a hiring decision in their science department might justifiably begin with a faith position. But regarding the credentials for a scientific position in a public institution or any other private laboratory, neither religious faith nor atheistic convictions should be a factor. It is not always easy to distinguish the real reason for a hiring decision and we must strive to eliminate any discrimination on the basis of religion.
Another issue is the potential influence of ideology or background beliefs of scientists on their work in science. ASA member Jitse Van Der Meer wrote an insightful article called Ideology and Science on this topic. He notes that whereas scientists do bring background beliefs to their work, the aim is always to achieve a scientific result independent of that ideology. The consilience of results from diverse background beliefs contributes to the confidence that the scientific work is in the right direction. Accordingly, an evangelical doing science correctly would achieve the same result as a Muslim or an atheist. The criterion of a good scientist should not be their religious belief itself but how those beliefs influence the science. Unfortunately, many evangelicals have been prone to advocate a modification of scientific results in order to meet their ideological preferences. Often they attempt to justify their approach by the perception that mainstream scientists have modified their science to meet atheistic preferences. Neither is correct.
There is an ever present tendency for profiling. We hear a lot about racial or ethnic profiling and here we may have indications of religious profiling. Widely disseminated media reports in the past decade or more have described evangelicals who have denied standard scientific methodology or scientific results based on their interpretation of the Bible. Whether it is the age of the earth or the validity of evolution, their skepticism is identified with evangelicalism. It is hard for the secular community to appreciate the nuances of the spectrum of opinions within evangelicalism. It is easier to profile all evangelicals as advocates of non-mainstream science.
We must stand against religious discrimination of any kind, as appears to have been the case with Gaskell. No decision of hiring for a scientific position or of funding of scientific research grants should be based on religious beliefs but on the qualifications of the individual alone. Being “potentially an evangelical” has no bearing on one’s scientific merit. Similarly, mainstream scientists are not to be portrayed as atheists whose lack of belief in a creator influences their science. The few who do attempt to alter their science to match their beliefs should not taint the vast majority of honest scientists whether they are evangelicals or atheists. Whatever statements Gaskell may have made in the past about issues beyond his field of expertise, it is abundantly clear that his own science is stellar and that he was the best candidate for the job. We urge a fair resolution of his case and a deeper understanding by everyone that being evangelical does not mean their science is distorted.

Science, Faith, and Public Policy

Randy Isaac — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 02:06:27 +0000

The 2010 ASA annual meeting is set to begin on Friday July 30. The first plenary talk will feature Congressman Venon Ehlers, an ASA member for many years. Other plenary speakers and contributed papers can be seen in the final program and the abstract book.

Audio files of talks are being posted at
http://www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2008podcast.xml

Attendees and ASA members are encouraged to use the comment feature of this post to submit comments and questions pertaining to any aspect of this meeting. Speakers will be encouraged to respond to any question directed to them.

The goal of our organization is to facilitate dialog among Christians in a context of Christian love, without fear of unjust condemnation. We do not shy from controversial topics but encourage respectful discussion of any topic related to science and faith, within the context of our statement of faith and our commitment to integrity in the practice of science.

Let the discussion begin.

Randy

Building a Bridge Between Faith and Science

Randy Isaac — Tue, 11 May 2010 14:44:56 +0000

Dr. Jennifer Wiseman, astronomer and currently president of the ASA Executive Council, is the featured guest May 11 and May 12, 2010, on the radio show “Afternoons with Dr. David Anderson” from 3pm to 4pm EDT on WAVA 105.1 FM in Washington, DC. The program can be heard on the internet. Listen to the show and share your comments on this blog.

Smithsonian Human Origins Initiative

Randy Isaac — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:07:34 +0000

The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History has announced its new Human Origins Initiative. Their website was launched yesterday. On Wednesday March 17 they will open the new David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins which features a major new exhibit on what it means to be human. As part of this initiative, the Smithsonian has convened a Broad Social Impact Committee (BSIC), acknowledging the spectrum of responses that might greet the exhibit. I have the privilege of being asked to be part of this committee which represents the wide range of religious and cultural traditions in America. The BSIC website lists the attendees but has not yet posted any of the collective input. The committee had no opportunity to influence the content of the exhibit. Rather, the objective was to help edit the FAQ section both in the exhibit and on the website. We have also been asked to help advise on the training of docents.

On Sunday March 21 from 5pm to 7pm, the committee will hold a press conference to talk about some of the reactions. Our committee met last June in a stimulating session sharing each of our representative groups’ potential reaction to the exhibit. We were able to view some of the back room activities in the museum as well as look at the exhibit construction in progress. We will meet again on March 21 and 22 and be able to view the final product. Those of you who are planning to come to the ASA meeting in Washington DC are encouraged to take the time to visit the exhibit.

To help me provide some input at the March 21-22 meeting, I’d appreciate your browsing the website and submitting your comments here.

AAAS Meeting

Randy Isaac — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:22:54 +0000

I’d like to share a few experiences from the AAAS meeting in San Diego last weekend.
First and foremost, and most relevant to this blog, was the DoSER (Dialog on Science, Ethics, and Religion) reception, held annually at these meetings. This is an AAAS sponsored program. At the reception, AAAS Vice President Al Teich and Francis Collins announced that Jennifer Wiseman will be the new Director of DoSER. She will take this role as a joint appointment in addition to becoming NASA’s chief scientist for the Hubble Space Telescope in a few months. She is vice president of the ASA council and will be president next year. Teich also announced that Templeton had agreed to fund DoSER for four years. One of the major objectives of the program is to bridge the communities of evangelical Christians and of scientists. We’ll be working closely with Jennifer during the coming years to make progress on this daunting but important task.

I don’t usually attend the award ceremony but this year Francis Collins received the Philip Hauge Abelson award for outstanding service to science and society. He was only given two minutes for an acceptance speech but he did well as usual.

I was surprised that there seemed to be relatively few papers on paleontology and anthropology this year, at least compared to last year. I had thought Ardi would be featured but apparently that’s old news by now. There were many sessions on dealing with climate change. Comments on that will be posted in that thread.

One theme of great interest to me was the 50th anniversary celebration of the laser. Ted Maimon constructed the first laser on May 17, 1960, only a few years after Charles Townes had built the first maser and then published a design for a laser. Several symposia recounted the history of this development and went on to describe the impact of lasers in our world and to discuss future directions.

Ed Moses gave an excellent overview of the National Ignition Facility. Construction of this facility began about 15 years ago and is now poised to achieve fusion within a year or two. They have already successfully fired all the lasers and met the timing targets to impinge all laser pulses on a 5mm gold cylinder. I recall sending one of our x-ray lithography experts to NIF about 10 years ago to participate in a review of the feasibility of this incredibly large project. Their vote of confidence seems to have been well placed. They have built 192 lasers that generate a total of 1.8 megajoules and 500 terawatts of ultraviolet laser energy. Whether or not fusion will ever be an economically viable energy source is still unknown but the science and technology inventions underlying this project will undoubtedly pay off. More information can be found at the NIF website.

Another laser talk by Nobel prize winner David Payne focused on the use of lasers in telecommunications. Erbium doped amplifiers and Ytterbium doped fibers have literally transformed the field. I was impressed with the progress in fiber lasers. Using reflectors on the ends of a short piece of fiber and pumping it in the right way leads to a powerful continuous wave laser. They have now demonstrated a 10kW CW laser and think they can get higher. This is likely to open up lots of opportunities of new applications for lasers.

A topical plenary session by Carol Greider on her 2009 Nobel prize-winning work on telomerase, was very impressive. She described the importance of telomeres, the repeating sets of TTGGGG that terminate each chromosome. These telomeres tend to shorten during each cell division and can ultimately lead to cellular malfunction. She then showed how they designed and carried out experiments to elucidate the role of telomerase, which restores the length of telomeres. Even those of us who weren’t biologists felt we could understand and enjoy the talk.

Another plenary talk of interest was the future of stem cell research. I was particularly interested in the 5 year program recently started on ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) since my father died of ALS. This time they are focusing on astrocytes that surround the motor neurons.

Finally, several ASA’ers helped staff the booth which we share with several other organizations (Zygon, CTNS, and PASTC). There’s usually a slow stream of people coming by to talk. We can’t afford to give out fancy gizmo’s like many of the booths but we can attract those who are interested in science and faith. Those who stopped to talk include those who expressed zero interest, those who didn’t know the two could be connected, aggressive anti-genetic engineering advocates, young-earth creationists, Jewish scientists curious about the approach from Christian perspectives, and many more. We gave out lots of brochures as well as some journals and newsletters. Hopefully we can gain more visibility.

Next year, the AAAS meeting will be in Washington DC. Maybe some of you can come help us there!

Radiocarbon Dating

Randy Isaac — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:36:45 +0000

For those of you interested in radiocarbon dating, I’d like to draw your attention to an article that reports a significant milestone in the calibration curves for C-14 dating. The international working group INTCAL, which compiles the accepted calibration curve, has now extended the calibration curve from 26,000 years to 50,000 years, a major accomplishment. The significance of this announcement is that many discoveries in that time frame can now be dated with more confidence, such as early cave art.

From a personal perspective, I’m proud to say that the team leader, Paula Reimer, is married to a good friend of mine from my home town. I haven’t seen him for four decades but I always enjoy hearing from him and about their work in radiocarbon dating.

Randy