Christian biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

[Achilles]

Twice I've noted that there is bias on both--it's a lawsuit. People on both sides are not going to be happy campers about the situations. Why do you persist in stating that I have not accepted this when I have two different posts acknowledging it?

Because you turn around and continue posting as you did before you acknowledged it...as if you had not acknowledged it at all:

 

(from post 25)

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.

 

(from post 34)

If the center had noted something along the lines of "applicants must have belief in evolution" (or whatever verbiage that makes lawyers happy), this would never have been an issue. If they felt that strongly about it, then they should have taken more care to address it in the hiring process in the first place.

 

(from post 45)

Abraham told his boss he would conduct his research in line with evolutionary concepts (per the brief). That tells me he was willing to do the job the way the facility would have expected from any other scientist.

 

(from post 55)

This would never have been an issue if the company hadn't given him crap for sharing his personal belief. It says in the brief he was going to conduct research in line with the company's evolution theory, so that should have zero impact on the company's scientific credibility.

<snip>

The way things are worded in the brief makes me think this is going to be a case on freedom of religion more than creationism vs. evolutionism--his main contention is that he wanted the freedom to call evolution a theory rather than scientific fact.

 

(from post 70)

Are you reading some brief I'm not? Religious beliefs and the freedom to express them are at the heart of this case.

So there are excerpts from 5 different posts where you certainly appear to be taking Mr. Abraham's brief as gospel. The fact that you have 1 post (post 50) where you clearly acknowledge that the brief is biased doesn't impress me much, considering that nothing in your rhetoric has changed since posting it.

 

The old adage goes "actions speak louder than words", however I don't have much in the way of actions to see here. Therefore, I tend to go with "words spoken 5 times are louder than those spoken once".

 

Please show me where I stated that it's a conspiracy to persecute Christians.

Stated? Oh, Jae, I'm sure you and I both know that you haven't used those specific words anywhere in this thread. But let's wander down memory lane, nonetheless:

(from post 7)

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.

<snip unrelated>

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.

 

(from post 25)

Here's the danger I'm concerned about--getting fired for a religious view (or lack thereof).

<snip>

This has a much greater implication than a creationism/evolutionism debate in this case.

 

(from post 34)

And firing someone for religious beliefs looks just as childish and petty, in addition to a complete violation of basic rights.

 

(from post 48)

I don't trust the MCAD as an unbiased agency. This is a politically very liberal state, and I'm unsure where these people are on the matter of religion in the workplace. If the company brings a lot of money into the state via grant/tax money, then the state has a vested interest in ruling for that company.

At every turn, you've tried to portray this as a religious freedom issue. You've flat out refused to support this with any kind of evidence (aside from holding up Mr. Abraham's legal brief as though it had been etched onto a stone tablet) or show how this isn't a matter of establishing a BFOQ.

 

Why are you being dishonest about my not noting bias, especially when the evidence is noted above?

Please see the 5-to-1 comparison that I provided above. Maybe you're not being honest with yourself?

 

Well then, feel free to quote relevant employment law. Which sources will you be using?

I provided a link on BFOQ in the very first post of this thread (it's a wiki, therefore it should be basic enough for everyone). None of my textbooks are online. Sorry

 

And it's discredited because it may well have bias?

That and they're unrelated to the actual argument. That they're unsupported and not defended is just gravy.

 

Do you discredit business sources because they're biased towards capitalist or socialist policy?

The example is vague and not related to the discussion, but yes, I imagine that I would. Propaganda is propaganda, regardless of the source. Do you think that I'm not capable of recognizing it in my own field of study?

 

Just because there is bias does not discount the entire set of facts that are brought out in the brief.

I'd like to add this to the first collection of quotes above, bringing the tally to 6-1.

 

You cannot discount an entire source because of bias.

Nope you sure can't, but I think most educated people would want to hold off on passing judgment one way or another until both sides could be heard. As I have shown above, you've already made up your mind that this is a religious freedom issue and that Mr. Abraham has been discriminated against. If that's not the case, then changing your tune, just a little, might help to distance yourself from that misconception.

 

Because in the news stories and the brief, the argument is that Mr. Abraham wants to call ToE a theory rather than scientific fact.

In that case, Mr. Abraham has weakened his own scientific credibility. Might as well say "That rock is a rock and not a purple Thursday" (trademark: Darth InSidious. Thanks!). Of course the Theory is a Theory; that's why they call it the Theory of evolution. If he's attempting to imply that it's a hypothesis, then he better start using different language (and get a whole lot of evidence to support his argument) before he gets his case thrown out by a judge that may have actually paid attention in those high school science courses.

 

That's the original contention, and I'm not the one ignoring it.

Who is then? Certainly not I. I acknowledge that this is Mr. Abraham's contention, however it doesn't take much to see that it isn't valid. Acknowledging something and accepting it are two different things, Jae.

 

Would you like stating a little more clearly just what you mean? There was only one question in that post that you referenced, unless you're meaning something else.

Sure:

 

MJ-W4 creates post #51

 

Jae Onasi creates post #55. In it she states:

The way things are worded in the brief makes me think this is going to be a case on freedom of religion more than creationism vs. evolutionism--his main contention is that he wanted the freedom to call evolution a theory rather than scientific fact. If you include in the definition of of scientific fact that the experiment has to be repeatable, then evolution is indeed a theory--it's not a repeatable process in its entirety.

Achilles creates post #56. He questions Jae final sentence in post #55 (provided above) thusly:

I'll ask again: What is a "scientific fact" and how does it differ from a "non-scientific fact"?

 

Also, repeatability is not the sole standard for testability. Weren't you required to take any science courses at doctor school?

Jae Onasi creates post #67. She responds to Achilles' final question from post #56 (provided above):

That's why I said "If you include in the definition of of scientific fact that the experiment has to be repeatable, then...." Weren't you required to learn what 'if...then' means in grade school?

Achilles reads this and takes it as half-thought out attempt to put the onus for saying something stupid back on him. Not wanting to jump to conclusions, he attempts to clarify Jae Onasi's line of reasoning by creating post #69 and asks:

So then the point of your comment was...?

Referring to Jae's comment in post #55 (the one that doesn't make any sense and that she tried to "loophole" her way out of in post #67)

 

Jae Onasi creates post #70 and states:

An answer to your question.

Achilles remembers that the comment he originally questioned was neither addressed to him, nor a question, create post #71 and includes:

Interesting that the post that I originally questioned you on was a response to someone else (in which you weren't answering a question). Would you like to try using another answer?

And that just about brings us to here.

 

To summarize:

MJ-W4 creates a post about the credibility of US scientists in the global scientific community.

Jae repeats that she believes this case to be religious freedom issue. She puts forth an argument that ToE cannot be tested because it cannot be observed directly, therefore is only a hypothesis (or lower case "t" theory in lay usage).

Achilles reminds everyone that direct observation is not the sole (or even the best) standard of testing in the scientific method.

Jae states that her comment hinged on the word "if", thereby distancing herself from the previous argument that ToE cannot be tested because it cannot be observed directly, therefore it is only a hypothesis.

Achilles then asks why she made the argument.

Jae says "to answer your question".

 

I hope that helps.

 

Before I end this post though, just a few matters of housekeeping:

 

In post #70 you accused me of stating that this was a case of evolution vs. creationism. In post #71 I mentioned that I couldn't find where you found this. Could you please either show me where you found it or withdraw your comment? Thanks!

 

In post #70 you accuse me of implying/explicitly stating that people with religious beliefs are incapable of doing good science. Since I stated quite the opposite in post #69 (and say as much in post #71), could you please either present some evidence for your accusation or withdraw it with an apology? Thanks!

 

Normally, I'm quite content not to follow up when people decide to suddenly abandon their previous comments, but in these two cases, you did make it kinda personal.

 

Thanks for reading.

[Jae Onasi]

Yes, your opinion is more equal than others. Jumping through loopholes? Isn't that rather the pot calling the kettle black? You're trying to divert the attention away from your wiggling with this.

 

Working with biased sources and gleaning information from them is done in history and other social sciences all the time. When I wrote my senior thesis on Martin Luther King's interactions with Lyndon Johnson on the Civil Rights issues, nearly every source I worked with had a very distinct and strong bias. That didn't make those primary and secondary sources worthless or useless. With your reasoning, you should discount Dawkins' works because of his anti-theistic bias (inflammatory quotes of which I IM'd you months back).

 

I'm also sure there are any number of employment law sources online that you could cite--I'll even take quotes from your books, though links are preferred.

 

I do apologize if I quoted you imprecisely on the evolution/creation comment.

[Achilles]

Yes, your opinion is more equal than others. Jumping through loopholes? Isn't that rather the pot calling the kettle black? You're trying to divert the attention away from your wiggling with this.

You're more than welcome to present your case. You can do so here or via PM, whichever you'd prefer. Whichever way you go, I hope that you'll have the decency to support your comments now that you've made them. I do think it would only be fair (considering the morning I wasted showing you the same courtesy).

 

Working with biased sources and gleaning information from them is done in history and other social sciences all the time. When I wrote my senior thesis on Martin Luther King's interactions with Lyndon Johnson on the Civil Rights issues, nearly every source I worked with had a very distinct and strong bias. That didn't make those primary and secondary sources worthless or useless.

Relevance? What does your senior thesis have to do with Mr. Abraham's case? Are you saying that Abraham's lawyer's bias has no bearing on what he includes (doesn't include/emphasizes/deemphasizes) in his brief? I'm really struggling to understand where you're going with this one.

 

With your reasoning, you should discount Dawkins' works because of his anti-theistic bias (inflammatory quotes of which I IM'd you months back).

Discount him from what? A little vague here, Jae. Context does matter.

 

I'm also sure there are any number of employment law sources online that you could cite--I'll even take quotes from your books, though links are preferred.

Gee, I imagine we could even start with the link that I provided in the first post. If you want to cut your teeth on some sources, that might be a good place to start.

 

I do apologize if I quoted you imprecisely on the evolution/creation comment.

I do appreciate that. Apology accepted. And the other comment?

 

Did you have anything further to contribute on my other points or should I assume that you do not wish to contest them?

 

Thanks for your post, Jae. Take care.

[Jae Onasi]

No, I'm not contesting points right now, nor am I conceding anything. I'm annoyed enough right now with your posting style that it's wiser to move on to something else and not say something I'll regret down the road.

[Achilles]

Do whatever you need to. I will state that I feel that it's both irresponsible and disrespectful to post allegations of a personal nature without backing them up, so I will be expecting support (here of via PM) at some point or a withdrawal of your comment.

 

Thanks and happy holidays!

[Rev7]

I don't really understand why this man was fired. He only stated his opinion. EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A LAW. I remember a year ago in school, my science class breifly went over the THEORY of evolution. I personally don't believe that humans 'evolved' from bacteria, and whales 'evolved' from a land walking, dog like creature. That is my opinion, I still went through the unit and was not expelled from school. (vague example, I know) I think that this is a very interesting case.

[Achilles]

I don't really understand why this man was fired. He only stated his opinion.

Indeed he did, and if he were a math teacher or an astronomer or a surgeon it wouldn't have been a big deal. Unfortunately, he was a biologist working in an evolutionary research lab. Acceptance of the Theory of evolution was a kind of prerequisite for the job. Since he was not qualified for the job he was fired.

 

EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A LAW.

Again, correct, but Laws (in the scientific usage) are only applied to very exceptional cases. Gravity is a theory. Electricity is based on a theory. Do you automatically discount them out-of-hand because they aren't designated as Laws?

 

I remember a year ago in school, my science class breifly went over the THEORY of evolution. I personally don't believe that humans 'evolved' from bacteria, and whales 'evolved' from a land walking, dog like creature.

Because you find the substantial evidence for evolution lacking? Or because the science conflicts with your religious views?

 

EDIT: Here's a fun link on whale evolution for anyone that's interested (includes a 5 minute video clip). And

is a second clip compliments of Ken Miller (for those of you living in the U.S., he co-authored your high school biology textbooks).

 

That is my opinion, I still went through the unit and was not expelled from school. (vague example, I know) I think that this is a very interesting case.

Unless you go into biology, I can't imagine your career will suffer for it

[Jae Onasi]

I will be expecting support (here of via PM) at some point or a withdrawal of your comment.

You want it when? Come on, it's not like you're my mother or boss.

It's Christmastime, and we probably both have better things to do with our time right about now then aggravate each other with stupid little barbs.

 

Thanks and happy holidays!

You too.

 

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone.

[Achilles]

You want it when? Come on, it's not like you're my mother or boss.

It's Christmastime, and we probably both have better things to do with our time right about now then aggravate each other with stupid little barbs.

Please look for my response in your inbox. Thanks.

[Jae Onasi]

The brief is biased.

The brief is biased.

The brief is biased.

The brief is biased.

The brief is biased.

The brief is biased.

The brief is biased.

The brief is biased.

 

I believe I've raised the ratio sufficiently. The wiggling you're doing is accusing me of not acknowledging bias when I had twice prior to your accusation, and then making excuses instead of dealing with it appropriately. Unless you've acknowledged that somewhere, the statement stands. The other issues you are not wiggling on and I apologize for my lack of clarity and specificity on that.

 

If Woods Hole can prove that Abraham's work suffered as a result of his beliefs, then they're pretty bullet-proof and the MA BFOQ will be upheld, end of issue. What any of us think, hope, feel, believe, etc. is irrelevant to how it actually gets litigated. I'm cynical enough to say this will be about winning, not necessarily about who's right.

 

If the lawyers try to make it into a theory vs. fact case, it'll likely go in Abraham's favor because of semantic technicalities. Abraham's legal team apparently wants to litigate it as a religious discrimination issue, however. I don't know how Woods Hole wants to litigate it because we don't have access to their brief, but I would imagine they'll argue job performance since that's provable if they have good documentation. If they cannot prove that his work performance suffered or affected the organization negatively, they're screwed, because then it looks like Abraham's supervisor repeatedly got onto him about his religious beliefs (noting blatantly obviously that this is subject to bias because we only have Abrahams' viewpoint) in an arbitrary and hostile manner. This is a tentative assessment subject to change based on new information.

 

Woods Hole ends up the loser no matter what happens, which would be unfortunate. They're forced into defending a supervisor who may or may not have discriminated over a battle of the definition of 'theory vs. fact'. Even if they win and are right, they're going to be labeled as 'the company that fired the Christian for his beliefs' by many religious (even though that would be wrong), they're going to be questioned by others on how they could have hired him in the first place, and outside agencies might rethink their decision to award the company grants that are going to get eaten up in litigation rather than research.

[Achilles]

There seems to be a shortage of Creation evidence. RQD to the rescue....

Scanning ahead, I don't see anything that even comes remotely close to providing evidence for creation.

 

(1) Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of “primitive” life forms to “more complex” systems we observe today. Only a small percentage of the earth’s surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column…. so, the claim of their having taken place to form the geological record you probably know doesn't make sense.

Even if the geologic column were shuffled like a deck of cards, radiometric dating could by used to accurately date fossils (back to 48.6 billion years).

 

(2) Unfortunately, only a few so-called "transitional fossils" have been found, with not much to indicate that they even were just that. It is probably going to stay this way, due to the lack of this evidence.

All fossils are transitional. Saying that we don't have record of transitional fossils is like going outside and saying we don't have any evidence of air.

 

(3) To go back to #1, the Earth's layers are actually saturated with “polystrate fossils” (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. The fossil record of plants is also in favor of special creation. (ever heard of the Cambrian explosion, I think its called?)

Cambrian explosion had to do with the sudden (tens of millions of years) appearance of a variety of complex animals. 70-80 million years hardly seems like "special creation". This argument is consistent with all other flavors of "goddidit": Science doesn't have it 100% figured out, therefore god must have done it.

 

(4) Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth’s magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form.

Wow. It's amazing that a planet made out of iron (such as Mercury) didn't get sucked into the Earth (obliterating all life). Or maybe who ever came up with this stuff got it wrong.

 

These data demonstrate that earth’s entire history is young, within a few thousand years.

(Dr. Thomas Barnes, at the University of Texas, has published most of this)

Define "a few thousand years", please. Keep in mind that recorded history spans approximately 6,000 years.

 

(5) "Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of plonium-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. (10) This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form."

- Robert Gentry (CREATION’S TINY MYSTERY)

 

"However, these authors disregarded the anaerobic environment and the high pressures and temperatures that really exist in the granite in which the Po halos are found. They did their high temperature experiments at one atmosphere pressure in air. Their experiments merely demonstrated that biotite will oxidize and blacken under these conditions, becoming opaque, and that released water from the biotite structure will cause the biotite to decrepitate as steam escapes, tearing the mica sheets apart. In either case the Po halos can no longer be seen through the microscope, but they would not have been destroyed by their experiments, although Armitage claimed they were. In no way are their experiments a valid refutation of the model I propose because they have not duplicated the conditions in which the granite once was formed nor the conditions under which the Po-halos would have formed."

Emphasis mine.

Link

 

(6) Man-made artifacts have also been found in these layers where, supposedly, humans were not supposed to be around. Examples listed by some archaeologists: the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock. I would think these would all point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.

Ever hear of burying the dead? Usually involves digging holes into the ground and putting stuff in the hole that doesn't "belong" there.

 

I believe I've raised the ratio sufficiently. The wiggling you're doing is accusing me of not acknowledging bias when I had twice prior to your accusation, and then making excuses instead of dealing with it appropriately.

Not sure what that last part means. I have already acknowledged the lip-service you have paid to the brief being biased, but since nothing in your rhetoric has changed (up until this post), I have no reason to think that you really meant it. I could *say* that I believe that jesus is my personal savior, but until I stop questioning religion, I doubt you would really believe me.

 

Unless you've acknowledged that somewhere, the statement stands.

My arguments were presented in post #76 on 12/15/07 (seven days ago). You have not addressed them at all, so I don't understand how I could have possibly wiggled on anything.

 

I posted post #76.

You posted post #77.

In post #77 you accuse me of wriggling.

Where/how did I "wriggle" and/or "make excuses" (on a matter that you haven't addressed) between post #76 and post #77?

 

The other issues you are not wiggling on and I apologize for my lack of clarity and specificity on that.

Apology accepted.

 

If Woods Hole can prove that Abraham's work suffered as a result of his beliefs, then they're pretty bullet-proof and the MA BFOQ will be upheld, end of issue. What any of us think, hope, feel, believe, etc. is irrelevant to how it actually gets litigated. I'm cynical enough to say this will be about winning, not necessarily about who's right.

The issue is whether or not acceptance of ToE is a BFOQ for the position. Whether or not his work suffered is irrelevant (a man can wait tables just as competently as a woman, but that doesn't stop Hooters from only hiring female servers).

 

If the lawyers try to make it into a theory vs. fact case, it'll likely go in Abraham's favor because of semantic technicalities.

The defense wouldn't. And I hope the plantiff would be wise enough not to make such a silly statement.

 

Abraham's legal team apparently wants to litigate it as a religious discrimination issue, however.

Of course they do

 

I don't know how Woods Hole wants to litigate it because we don't have access to their brief, but I would imagine they'll argue job performance since that's provable if they have good documentation.

They might, but I'm guessing the defense lawyers are competent enough not to do that. BFOQ is applicable and a significantly stronger case.

 

If they cannot prove that his work performance suffered or affected the organization negatively, they're screwed, because then it looks like Abraham's supervisor repeatedly got onto him about his religious beliefs (noting blatantly obviously that this is subject to bias because we only have Abrahams' viewpoint) in an arbitrary and hostile manner. This is a tentative assessment subject to change based on new information.

Not if they can establish that acceptance of ToE is a BFOQ for the position. If they cannot, then they are screwed (as I have stated repeately before). If they can then Mr. Abraham is vulnerable to a counter-suit. He really stands to lose a lot here. I genuinely hope that he hasn't been taken in by an activist law firm because he really could get bent over a barrel when this is all said and done.

 

Woods Hole ends up the loser no matter what happens, which would be unfortunate. They're forced into defending a supervisor who may or may not have discriminated over a battle of the definition of 'theory vs. fact'.

"Theory vs. hypothesis". Really. Please.

I imagine that even if the lawyers can't figure out where the "facts" go, the scientists they're defending will correct them.

 

Even if they win and are right, they're going to be labeled as 'the company that fired the Christian for his beliefs' by many religious (even though that would be wrong), they're going to be questioned by others on how they could have hired him in the first place, and outside agencies might rethink their decision to award the company grants that are going to get eaten up in litigation rather than research.

You may be right. I seriously doubt anyone in the science community (the people that Woods Hole actually deals with) is going to see it that way. All the opinion stuff I've come across paints Abraham as a total fool. I don't think WHOI has any cause for concern.

[Aeroldoth]

I'm cynical enough to say this will be about winning, not necessarily about who's right.

That's how court cases have always worked... where have you been?

[Jae Onasi]

That's how court cases have always worked... where have you been?

 

In The Land Where Justice is Served Appropriately, but parcels keep getting sold off to land sharks who pave it with parking lots and put up shopping malls and casinos.

[Jae Onasi]

The creation/evolution science posts were moved to the Creation/evolution and Science thread. Please continue any creation/evolution science discussions there, and stay with the topic of the case in this thread. Thanks.