Christian biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

[Achilles]

Link

BOSTON (Reuters) - A Christian biologist is suing the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, claiming he was fired for refusing to accept evolution, lawyers involved in the case said on Friday.

Some interesting highlights:

Woods Hole, a federally funded nonprofit research center on Cape Cod, said in a statement it firmly believed its actions and those of its employees in the case were "entirely lawful" and that it does not discriminate.

 

Abraham, who was dismissed eight months after he was hired, said he was willing to do research using evolutionary concepts but that he had been required to accept Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific fact or lose his job.

 

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination dismissed the case this year, saying Abraham's request not to work on evolutionary aspects of research would be difficult for Woods Hole because its work is based on evolutionary theories.

It sounds as though Woods Hole will be able to establish acceptance of ToE as a bona fide occupational qualifier (BFOQ), however...

Abraham said this condition was never spelled out in the advertisement for the job and that his dismissal led to severe economic losses, an injured reputation, emotional pain and suffering and mental anguish.

...they might find themselves in a sticky situation if they cannot show that they made a reasonable effort to emphasize their BFOQ in the hiring process. Mr. Abraham is going to be in a world of hurt if they later find that he lied to or misguided Woods Hole during the interview, because then he's potentially opened himself up to a counter-suit.

 

It will be interesting to see what (if any) wide-spread ramifications this case has on the science/religion divide.

[mimartin]

Another frivolous lawsuit, I was hired to do a job, I cannot do said job. Is the company supposed to keep paying me even though I cannot perform the work required? If he was a ditch digger and they fired him for not believing in evolution then he would have a case. It this case he was fired because he could not perform his job; he let principle outweigh financials consideration (something I would applaud him for if not for this lawsuit asking for $500,000).

 

Glad to see The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination got the case right the first time. Shame he couldn't take the hint. I agree with their findings and I believe the case (at least on the surface) is extremely simple as is summed up nicely by Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

[SilentScope001]

If he was a ditch digger and they fired him for not believing in evolution then he would have a case. It this case he was fired because he could not perform his job; he let principle outweigh financials consideration (something I would applaud him for if not for this lawsuit asking for $500,000).

 

Uh.

 

Abraham, who was dismissed eight months after he was hired, said he was willing to do research using evolutionary concepts but that he had been required to accept Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific fact or lose his job.

 

Basically, he would be WILLING to let financial consideration outweigh principle...What he said is, "I won't believe in evolution, but I'll operate under the assumption evolution is correct, for the sake of science."

 

Sounds like an admirable compromise of intergity that more people should seek to pull off. Too bad he got fired because of his personal belief, and not due to what he is capable of, which he said that he would be fully capable of working under evolution. It could be hard, but at least let the guy stay within the organization for some time before kicking him out on unrelated charges. Could you have at least tried to see how he would do his research before firing?

 

For crying out loud, can we not have personal opinon?

[Web Rider]

Perhaps there is information we are not getting here. You know, maybe he was constantly proselytizing during work, maybe his views were causing a harmful work environment.

[mimartin]

Basically, he would be WILLING to let financial consideration outweigh principle...What he said is, "I won't believe in evolution, but I'll operate under the assumption evolution is correct, for the sake of science."

That is what he is saying now, after having the case dismissed by The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination who said that Abraham requested not to work on evolutionary aspects of research. Since Woods Hole work is based on evolutionary theories it would be hard for them to accommodate him. I guess they could make him the janitor instead of firing him, but I still feel a suit would have been filed over such a job reclassification.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination dismissed the case this year, saying

Abraham's request not to work on evolutionary aspects of research

would be difficult for Woods Hole because its work is based on evolutionary theories.

He was hired for a job, he didn't want to do it, he got fired. If I applied for a job as a burger-flipper at McDonald's and my religion forbade me to get within two feet of meat, I'd be fired within the week, too.

 

For crying out loud, can we not have personal opinon?

Sure, we can. If I flipped burgers but believed that by doing so I was condemning my soul to eternal suffering, there'd be no grounds to fire me, unless, of course, I was making my views known with sufficient vigor to create a significantly bad work environment. But we're not just talking personal belief, we're talking a refusal on his part to do the job he was hired to do.

 

Not to mention that the fact that this was his religion means squat. If I have a belief, I have a belief. Doesn't matter if I think hot dogs are bad due to political, religious, traditional, or cultural beliefs. I'm growing seriously tired of people being awarded a special kind of respect for their beliefs if said beliefs happen to include some sort of supernatural unit as part of its rationalization. If I believe evolution to be false for religious reasons, I should be awarded the same amount of respect as a person who believes evolution if false for non-religious reasons, ie. not much.

[Jae Onasi]

So what if he didn't believe in evolution? As long as he performed his duties as specified in his contract, then he shouldn't have been fired. If they told him he had to 'convert' or whatever, then they violated his religious freedom and freedom of speech, and they're in the wrong. Since this was a federally funded non-profit center, they don't have the same latitude on this as do private corporations do. If this is a case of a federally funded organization telling someone that he _cannot_ believe, that's just as dangerous a precedent to set as forcing someone to believe in something they don't want to, and that precedent could be used to force all sorts of beliefs on people if taken to an extreme end.

[Achilles]

So what if he didn't believe in evolution? As long as he performed his duties as specified in his contract, then he shouldn't have been fired.

I believe that mimartin addressed this in post #5.

 

If they told him he had to 'convert' or whatever, then they violated his religious freedom and freedom of speech, and they're in the wrong.

I believe I addressed this by mentioning BFOQ in post #1.

 

Since this was a federally funded non-profit center, they don't have the same latitude on this as do private corporations do.

To the best of my knowledge, BFOQs are not limited to private vs. government funded, etc.

 

If this is a case of a federally funded organization telling someone that he _cannot_ believe, that's just as dangerous a precedent to set as forcing someone to believe in something they don't want to, and that precedent could be used to force all sorts of beliefs on people if taken to an extreme end.

No more so than the BFOQ that prevents men from being waiters at Hooters (had Hooters established the BFOQ prior to their lawsuit back in the 90's). Or the BFOQ that establishes that priests must believe in god. Can't have it both ways.

 

If Woods Hole cannot establish that being an actual scientist is a BFOQ for this position, then he might have a case, but I'm willing to bet that they won't have to try too hard to do so.

 

What I see as being the real long-term issue here is the rights for those that claim to be scientists (but don't actually practice science) while attempting to use their scientific credentials to impress upon those that don't know any better.

[Tommycat]

Welllll, Kinda Achilles. Just because someone is required to test evolution, does not mean that they should be required to accept Darwin's theory of Evolution to be scientific fact. In some cases it is good to have an opposing viewpoint to provide a critical eye.

[Achilles]

Welllll, Kinda Achilles. Just because someone is required to test evolution, does not mean that they should be required to accept Darwin's theory of Evolution to be scientific fact.

As opposed to "non-scientific fact"? How many types of facts are there? Once we get passed that hang up, we can begin discussing how once again someone has accidentally placed "facts" on the "output" side of the scientific method, rather than the "input" side (like how it works in the actual scientific community)

 

Yes, if someone is left in a lab and responsible for producing reports that show the progress of various kinds of evolutionary research, I would imagine that it's rather imperative that the person actually accept the ToE.

 

Would you trust a meteorologist that stated that he didn't believe in rain?

 

In some cases it is good to have an opposing viewpoint to provide a critical eye.

I whole-heartedly, one thousand percent agree with you. Just as soon as someone presents any scientific data that refutes ToE, then I will subsequently agree that there is cause not to accept it as the best explanation for what can be/has been observed.

[True_Avery]

So what if he didn't believe in evolution?As long as he performed his duties as specified in his contract, then he shouldn't have been fired.

 

Here is an example of this situation from a different perspective:

 

A man is hired by a Christian church to put together a religious gathering. He is required to put it together, move it along, give it feeling, and even speak to many religious people gathering to celebrate their faith. He is trusted to speak the word of God to adults and children alike.

 

Now, one day while he is researching the bible, writing a speak, and setting up a gathering he tells his boss (Who could be a priest) that he is a firm atheist, and believes the Christian faith should be respected, but is in most ways completely wrong. This man who was hired to stand up and speak to children and adults about God's words and the teachings of Christianity does not believe in a single word he is saying. He stand up there and speak to your children, speak to you, talk to people off stage, and a number of different things. All this time, he firmly believes that all of the believers in front of him are just lost in their own fantasy world. Including you.

 

I would take a pretty good guess that he was be told to please leave to be replaced by someone more suited to represent the Christian religion. Not because of his rights to have his beliefs, but because it is hard to trust someone with something they do not think is true in the least.

 

I would have fired him. Why? Do you trust a guy to fix your computer if he has never used one? Do you trust someone to drive you somewhere when they do not know how to drive? Do you trust someone to work on your heart when they have had no training in med school?

 

It is a problem of trust, not belief. They give him funding and support to research and prove something that he does not believe can be proven. To almost any company, that kind of person is seen as a roadblock. A waste of time and effort for the future of the business. Would it not make more sense to hire someone that firmly believes in this and wants to try his hardest to prove it?

 

Would you not want to hire a deeply religious man to speak to your children about religion over the atheist?

 

As long as he performed his duties as specified in his contract, then he shouldn't have been fired.

He has no grounds to sue these people in my opinion. He went into a career to work and be trusted with something he did not believe was true or could ever be proven. What did he expect to happen when he told his boss? A pat on the back and more research funds? I respect his ability to work on things that he is against, but doing so under the trust of money and science is asking for trouble.

 

He was doing his job, but not to the extent and heart of someone who actually believes that this can be proven. This is not prejudice. This is good business and a better investment for the future of the company.

 

 

If they told him he had to 'convert' or whatever, then they violated his religious freedom and freedom of speech, and they're in the wrong.

And he made a stupid decision in having people put trust and money in his hands only to use it with very very very little enthusiasm. By taking the job over a better qualified person and potentially doing harm to the business with full knowledge that he did not believe in anything he was doing, he himself was also in the wrong.

 

Religious belief does not get you a free ride and respect. It does not get you a get out a jail free card or a free "Haha, I'm going to be ethical and sue you!" card. Belief is your own, and voicing that belief to a boss in science who trusts you to work with people who's research revolves around evolution under the trust of funds is just an incredibly stupid move. If I had seen this another way I could assume he simply set this up to get some money off of them.

 

If he had stayed quiet and continued to work, he could have kept his job. Instead, he pushed his own beliefs upon his boss and staff and created a workspace with tension and distrust. He got himself fired by taking the job in the first place.

 

Since this was a federally funded non-profit center, they don't have the same latitude on this as do private corporations do. If this is a case of a federally funded organization telling someone that he _cannot_ believe, that's just as dangerous a precedent to set as forcing someone to believe in something they don't want to, and that precedent could be used to force all sorts of beliefs on people if taken to an extreme end.

Sounds like "California made a new smoking law?! COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!1111" argument I hear I lot.

 

He took a job he did not believe in, and was put to work trying to prove scientific theories he did not believe could be proven. Thats like a TV repair man coming to your house that does not believe that electricity exists. It just doesn't mix well.

 

He is in full right to believe anything he wants, but he chose a career field were he would act as a roadblock instead of a supporter. I support his beliefs. He can believe spaghetti is a living creature for all I care. But I would not hire him to help lead science to a new age, simply because I cannot trust someone to work in a field they do not trust themselves.

 

Now, thats one argument. I had a science teacher in High School who would support both sides of the spectrum, and I could never quite figure out were he was as far as beliefs go. But, he was my best biology teacher and my favorite.

 

So, if you can keep beliefs from interfering with your work, then go ahead. Just don't expect the company and boss you work for to see the same way when you explain to them that you think their work is completely wrong.

[Tommycat]

As opposed to "non-scientific fact"? How many types of facts are there? Once we get passed that hang up, we can begin discussing how once again someone has accidentally placed "facts" on the "output" side of the scientific method, rather than the "input" side (like how it works in the actual scientific community)

Not all facts are scientific, and not all science is fact. Some is pseudoscience(like much of creationism).

 

Yes, if someone is left in a lab and responsible for producing reports that show the progress of various kinds of evolutionary research, I would imagine that it's rather imperative that the person actually accept the ToE.

Depends on the research itself. There are types of evolution that even some people who disagree with Darwin's Theory are able to accept(it seems silly to me as well, but hey they can accept "microevolution"). It honestly depends on the actual evolutionary testing they were doing. For all we know the testing he was doing was on the evolution of viruses. Something that is an observed scientific fact that is repeatable, whereas the large scale evolution of man would not be something repeatable.

 

Would you trust a meteorologist that stated that he didn't believe in rain?

I might trust one that didn't believe in Global Warming.

 

I whole-heartedly, one thousand percent agree with you. Just as soon as someone presents any scientific data that refutes ToE, then I will subsequently agree that there is cause not to accept it as the best explanation for what can be/has been observed.

 

Which ToE though. Darwin's has been refuted, however, there are better explanations. Well more correctly Darwin's ToE has been found to be insufficient, and been changed accordingly. Or do you still believe that Darwin was correct and we evolved FROM apes rather than having a common ancestor?

[Achilles]

Not all facts are scientific, and not all science is fact.

I'm afraid this does nothing to answer my questions or address my point. But then again, maybe it does, considering that I can't even figure out what that is supposed to mean.

 

Some is pseudoscience(like much of creationism).

Are you telling me that you believe that science = pseudoscience and vice versa?

 

Making observations based on facts is the very first step in the scientific method. Facts cannot be both the input and the output. The output of the scientific method is a (capital "T") Theory that offers explanations about/based on fact (collected in step 1). In some cases, the output is a Law but the circumstances for these cases are rare.

 

Depends on the research itself. There are types of evolution that even some people who disagree with Darwin's Theory are able to accept(it seems silly to me as well, but hey they can accept "microevolution").

For example? Are these disagreements based on science?

 

It honestly depends on the actual evolutionary testing they were doing. For all we know the testing he was doing was on the evolution of viruses. Something that is an observed scientific fact that is repeatable, whereas the large scale evolution of man would not be something repeatable.

"Repeatable" is not the only standard for scientific theory. Ability to make accurate predictions is another, which is incredibly useful when working on phenomenon that cannot be directly observed (big bang, existence of black holes, evolution of species over hundreds of thousands of years, etc).

 

I might trust one that didn't believe in Global Warming.

Move your own goal post as much as you'd like, but please leave mine alone. Thanks!

 

Which ToE though. Darwin's has been refuted, however, there are better explanations. Well more correctly Darwin's ToE has been found to be insufficient, and been changed accordingly. Or do you still believe that Darwin was correct and we evolved FROM apes rather than having a common ancestor?

Yes, Theories do undergo change as new information is discovered. Or, dare I say, they evolve. This change is not necessarily a discard/replace transaction, as you seem to think or suggest. Decent with modification is still valid (although it is now applied at the gene level rather than the organism level). Natural selection is still valid. The discovery of inheritable traits or the later discovery of DNA did not "disprove" one ToE and create new ones, they simply refined what was already there.

 

But all that aside, I'm not sure how this addresses my point. There is either scientific data that refutes ToE or there is not. Surely, the aforementioned modifications would not have been possible if the scientific community had been complacent, therefore I'm not suggesting that anyone rest on their laurels. What I am stating is that it makes absolutely no sense what so ever to claim to be a person of science on one hand and then completely ignore the mountain of evidence behind ToE with the other without something to stand behind.

 

If you believe that ToE isn't valid, based on some flaw in the existing theory or a problem with the evidence, that's one thing. But to discount it "just cuz" doesn't cut it.

 

Thanks for reading.

[mimartin]

Did anyone actually go to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s website? They actually produce Oceanus –The Magazine That Explores the Oceans in Depth. I remember that little magazine in my school library when I was a kid.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I've been there. They have this huge lobster it's pretty badass.

[Tommycat]

I'm afraid this does nothing to answer my questions or address my point. But then again, maybe it does, considering that I can't even figure out what that is supposed to mean.

 

Are you telling me that you believe that science = pseudoscience and vice versa?

I am not claiming pseudoscience =science, Merely pointing out that some scientific conclusions tend to be reached by means other than proper testing, meaning they are not scientific fact but merely pseudoscience.

 

Making observations based on facts is the very first step in the scientific method. Facts cannot be both the input and the output. The output of the scientific method is a (capital "T") Theory that offers explanations about/based on fact (collected in step 1). In some cases, the output is a Law but the circumstances for these cases are rare.

So you think it is best to start with an assumption that a Theory is valid rather than attempting to prove a theory invalid? I thought that's what scientific testing was all about. You formulate a hypothesis, attempt to prove it, find proof and it becomes a Theory. Afterwards testing is done to see if the Theory is valid, by trying to find ways to disprove that Theory. Honestly its teh same mistake creationists make all the time. They start with the "theory" and never try to prove it wrong, only finding evidence that proves it right.

 

For example? Are these disagreements based on science?

Well, several biologists have come up with their supporting evidence, but I must admit that me being firmly on the side that trusts that Evolution occurs, I really don't follow those biologists that closely. I read a paper that one of them wrote, and sadly I couldn't dissect it enough to say whether the scientific evidence he provided was accurate or not. I'm no biologist.

 

"Repeatable" is not the only standard for scientific theory. Ability to make accurate predictions is another, which is incredibly useful when working on phenomenon that cannot be directly observed (big bang, existence of black holes, evolution of species over hundreds of thousands of years, etc).

Some simply do not trust that the predictions were accurate enough. Abain, biology is not my area of expertise, so to be honest, I tend to only argue that there are valid ways that a person can do their job without believing in a specific scientific Theory.

 

Move your own goal post as much as you'd like, but please leave mine alone. Thanks!

Your goal post was unrealistic. Are you saying that evolution has been proven to the same level of fact that rain has? I would tend to disagree on that front(and keep in mind that I also submitted to you the "dawn horse" or Eohippus tree). Rain is undeniably real. You can go outside and verify that rain occurs by observing that it occurs. You cannot go outside and verify that evolution is real by watching an animal evolve before your eyes. Rain is not a scientific theory, it is a physical object. So your point was invalid to begin with.

 

Yes, Theories do undergo change as new information is discovered. Or, dare I say, they evolve. This change is not necessarily a discard/replace transaction, as you seem to think or suggest. Decent with modification is still valid (although it is now applied at the gene level rather than the organism level). Natural selection is still valid. The discovery of inheritable traits or the later discovery of DNA did not "disprove" one ToE and create new ones, they simply refined what was already there.

and that would be why the Theory of Evolution as it is today is not Darwin's theory anymore. I have a problem with it being called Darwin's theory when it bears very little in common with the original theory.

But all that aside, I'm not sure how this addresses my point. There is either scientific data that refutes ToE or there is not. Surely, the aforementioned modifications would not have been possible if the scientific community had been complacent, therefore I'm not suggesting that anyone rest on their laurels. What I am stating is that it makes absolutely no sense what so ever to claim to be a person of science on one hand and then completely ignore the mountain of evidence behind ToE with the other without something to stand behind.

 

If you believe that ToE isn't valid, based on some flaw in the existing theory or a problem with the evidence, that's one thing. But to discount it "just cuz" doesn't cut it.

 

Thanks for reading.

Many people find evidence suggesting reasons for refuting evolution. Me, I'm far from that camp, so I do not keep those resources close to me at all. I'm merely arguing from the defensible position that he may not have NEEDED to believe that Darwin's theory was scientific fact in order to perform his job...

[mimartin]

I'm merely arguing from the defensible position that he may not have NEEDED to believe that Darwin's theory was scientific fact in order to perform his job...

I'd agree with you and Jae on this point, but if that was the case he should not have requested not to work on evolutionary aspects of research. That according to Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination whom I assumed investigated his claims before dismissing the case.

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is the state's chief civil rights agency. The Commission works to eliminate discrimination on a variety of bases and areas, and strives to advance the civil rights of the people of the Commonwealth through law enforcement, outreach and training[/Quote]Sounds to me that their job is to make sure discrimination did not happen here.

[Web Rider]

So you think it is best to start with an assumption that a Theory is valid rather than attempting to prove a theory invalid? I thought that's what scientific testing was all about. You formulate a hypothesis, attempt to prove it, find proof and it becomes a Theory. Afterwards testing is done to see if the Theory is valid, by trying to find ways to disprove that Theory. Honestly its teh same mistake creationists make all the time. They start with the "theory" and never try to prove it wrong, only finding evidence that proves it right.

 

Theory(capital "T") does not equal hypothesis. At least use the right vocabulary.

 

You just stated that we should think Theories are invalid but use hypothesis and testing to create a valid Theory.

 

What is it? Should Theories, formed only after good hard testing of a hypothesis, be considered valid? Or should Theories, formed only after good hard testing be considered invalid?

[Tommycat]

I'd agree with you and Jae on this point, but if that was the case he should not have requested not to work on evolutionary aspects of research. That according to Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination whom I assumed investigated his claims before dismissing the case. Sounds to me that their job is to make sure discrimination did not happen here.

Not necessarily, Having dealt with a discrimination case myself, I can say that sometimes the case will be dismissed because of the damages he was requesting so as to allow for a civil suit rather than a regulatory fine against the company.

 

Web Rider: I said no such thing. Theories are from hypothesis. Theories are constantly tested to show that they are NOT invalid. All Scientific Theories must stand up to scrutiny. Therefore a Theory is considered valid until evidence proves the Theory invalid. So in testing it your hypothesis should be "X Theory is invalid" and attempt to prove the hypothesis. See how that works.

[Achilles]

I am not claiming pseudoscience =science, Merely pointing out that some scientific conclusions tend to be reached by means other than proper testing, meaning they are not scientific fact but merely pseudoscience.

Then they aren't "scientific conclusions". If the conclusion was reached by some means other than "proper testing" then it isn't scientific. A "conclusion" cannot be both "scientific" and "pseudoscientific" at the same time.

 

So you think it is best to start with an assumption that a Theory is valid rather than attempting to prove a theory invalid?

Theory status is the prize that you win at the end of the process. I think you're confusing capital "T" Theory with lower-case "h" hypothesis. Scientists generally seek to disprove certain hypothesis in order to develop a Theory.

 

I thought that's what scientific testing was all about. You formulate a hypothesis, attempt to prove it, find proof and it becomes a Theory. Afterwards testing is done to see if the Theory is valid, by trying to find ways to disprove that Theory.

Pretty close on the first part. Not so much on the second part. A hypothesis might undergo several revisions based on the results of testing, but the process doesn't finish and a Theory isn't produced until testing is finished. As new information becomes available (i.e. someone finds a black swan) then the Theory no longer produces a "TRUE" response, and the hypothesis must be revised, tested, repeat until the Theory can be satisfactorily revised.

 

Honestly its teh same mistake creationists make all the time. They start with the "theory" and never try to prove it wrong, only finding evidence that proves it right.

Wrong on several counts. I'll be very generous and agree that creationists make observations based on facts, but by no means do they progress any further than the next step, which is the formation of a hypothesis. No testing is done (because none is possible) and alternative explanations are ignored (which means their hypothesis can't possibly be disproven).

 

Science = Observation<hypothesis<test<revision<Theory

Creationism = Observation<hypothesis

 

Well, several biologists have come up with their supporting evidence, but I must admit that me being firmly on the side that trusts that Evolution occurs, I really don't follow those biologists that closely. I read a paper that one of them wrote, and sadly I couldn't dissect it enough to say whether the scientific evidence he provided was accurate or not. I'm no biologist.

Then it's possible that these biologist just made up a bunch of stuff to support their argument, counting on the fact that most people wouldn't be able to understand what was being said? Therefore, it's possible that there isn't any scientific basis for denying ToE?

 

I don't fault you in the slightest for not being a biologist. I do have to wonder why you're attempting to argue something that you admit you don't fully understand.

 

Some simply do not trust that the predictions were accurate enough.

But yet, Creationism (which makes no testable predictions at all) should be the default winner? Surely you see the double standard.

 

Without specifics, I'm afraid I cannot comment further than that.

 

Abain, biology is not my area of expertise, so to be honest, I tend to only argue that there are valid ways that a person can do their job without believing in a specific scientific Theory.

Well, that's just vague enough that I can agree with you. I don't agree that this is one of those cases though.

 

Aforementioned meterologist doesn't believe in ToE? Not a problem for me in the slightest. Biologist that doesn't believe in ToE? Big time problem for me.

 

Your goal post was unrealistic.

Doesn't excuse the red herring.

 

Are you saying that evolution has been proven to the same level of fact that rain has?

Yep, I guess I'm saying it has

 

I would tend to disagree on that front(and keep in mind that I also submitted to you the "dawn horse" or Eohippus tree).

I either missed it or you're thinking of someone else. Could you please repeat the argument so that I can catch up?

 

Rain is undeniably real. You can go outside and verify that rain occurs by observing that it occurs. You cannot go outside and verify that evolution is real by watching an animal evolve before your eyes.

As I have already stated, there are other standards of proof other than direct observation. However, if you insist on direct observation, I believe viruses might be a good jumping off point.

 

and that would be why the Theory of Evolution as it is today is not Darwin's theory anymore. I have a problem with it being called Darwin's theory when it bears very little in common with the original theory.

Perhaps a stong letter to your representatives in Congress would be a good starting point.

 

Many people find evidence suggesting reasons for refuting evolution.

Not sure how to respond to this other than to repeat what I said in the section you quoted. *shrugs*

 

Me, I'm far from that camp, so I do not keep those resources close to me at all. I'm merely arguing from the defensible position that he may not have NEEDED to believe that Darwin's theory was scientific fact in order to perform his job...

I believe that it has been pointed out several times that he was a biologist working in a lab specializing in evolutionary research. I'm sure the Discovery Institute would be more than happy to snatch him up, so I can't imagine that he'll be unemployed for long.

[mimartin]

Not necessarily, Having dealt with a discrimination case myself, I can say that sometimes the case will be dismissed because of the damages he was requesting so as to allow for a civil suit rather than a regulatory fine against the company.

I don't think they would of given the explanation they did if that were the case. Oh, we believe you have a case, but we are going to wreak it by releasing this data. Then he could file a suit against them too.

 

Well I've been looking around. He worked for Mark Hahn, Phd. at Hahn Lab. I believe if you read the Research Interests it clearly states that this research includes evolutionary perspective.

[MJ-W4]

All sources I find agree that N. Abraham stated his "wish not to work on evolutionary aspects of my grant". This is a clear disqualification for his job, and he brought it about himself.

 

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination dismissed the case this year, saying Abraham's request not to work on evolutionary aspects of research would be difficult for Woods Hole because its work is based on evolutionary theories.

This seems to be the heart of the matter. If you turn around on your boss one day and say 'Sorry chief, I'd rather not do my job,' you are bound to be fired, regardless of your religion or the colour of your underwear.

 

Another point is that the zebrafish provides interesting aspects of evolution and genetics. By stating he didn't want to work on evolutionary aspects even though he is said to be a zebrafish specialist he clearly raised doubts about his vocational qualifications.

[Tommycat]

Well I'm done quoting and responding to the proof by innundation posts, but I will say that I argue because its fun Achilles, Same reason that you argue without even being sure what the "Dawn Horse" is(aka the earliest known fossil in the equine line). I enjoy it. When I say I'm no biologist, I mean simply that I am not that much of an expert on biology. Someone could mislabel a component they are using to explain their argument and I may miss it. It doesn't mean I don't know anything about evolution. I have seen enough evidence to show that Evolution occurs.

 

As far as the topic. Meh I really could care less about the person in question. I can't stand the frivalous lawsuits. It is however possible that some failing on the part of WHOI to make arrangements on his request could have left them open to a civil suit. He may have even said during the interview that he refused to believe in Darwin's Theory on Evolution. I am sure there is moer to the story than we have heard. There usually is. Then you find out he wins the civil case and gets his 500,000. I'm just trying to figure out what it is.

[Darth InSidious]

As opposed to "non-scientific fact"?

Sure. Like that Thursday is purple.

 

As for the topic at hand, I'd imagine that if you go into evolutionary research (which is not, I should add at this point, aimed at the refutation of the theory of evolution, in which case it would probably be wise to have no opinion on the subject), it would be wise to believe in it.

[Jae Onasi]

You can know about something without actually believing on it, and I have no doubt Abraham is familiar with the theory. As long as he was performing his duties appropriately, he should not have been fired. A lot of research, even in 'evolutionary research', is so narrowly defined that it doesn't come close to encompassing the entire ToE. Abraham's work was in programmed cell death in zebrafish. Does that sound like something on which belief in ToE or religion of any kind actually has a significant impact?

 

Here is the brief filed with the courts. His research was very narrowly defined (as most advanced research is) and doesn't specifically _require belief_ in ToE as scientific fact. However, in point 10, Abraham told his employers that he did accept ToE as a _theory_, and in point 20 he was willing to analyze his work utilizing evolutionary concepts if warranted even if he didn't believe that the _theory_ of evolution was scientific _fact_ (an important distinction). In addition, his beliefs on ToE and creationism had no impact on his work on programmed cell death in zebrafish and thus no impact on his work performance. The company did not make belief in ToE a requirement for the job and why would they? It's not relevant to that particular job. You could believe in 4 turtles holding up the earth and it wouldn't have an impact on research on zebrafish cells. He was harassed and fired for his religious views, not for work performance. The Massachusetts court got it wrong.

 

Here's the danger I'm concerned about--getting fired for a religious view (or lack thereof). And before the atheists cry foul here, if an atheist is hired by a religious institution (unlikely, but a job's a job sometimes), or, say, a Muslim boss has hired a Christian, atheist, or person of some other faith, and that person is fired for religious views that do not have an impact on their work performance, that's a violation of religious freedoms. This has a much greater implication than a creationism/evolutionism debate in this case.