Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, December 9, 2007 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Document Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

by boston.com

Thanks to Richard Prins for the link.

Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says
Woods Hole states creationist stance at odds with work

Globe Staff / December 7, 2007,


The battle between science and creationism has reached the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, where a former researcher is claiming he was fired because he doesn't believe in evolution.
more stories like this

Nathaniel Abraham filed a lawsuit earlier this week in US District Court in Boston saying that the Cape Cod research center dismissed him in 2004 because of his Christian belief that the Bible presents a true account of human creation.

Abraham, who is seeking $500,000 in compensation for a violation of his civil rights, says in the suit that he lost his job as a postdoctoral researcher in a biology lab shortly after he told his superior that he did not accept evolution as scientific fact.

"Woods Hole believes they have the right to insist on a belief in evolution," said David C. Gibbs III, one of Abraham's two attorneys and general counsel of the Christian Law Association in Seminole, Fla.

Evolution is a fundamental tenet of biology that species emerge because of genetic changes to organisms that, over time, favor their survival. Creationists reject the notion that humans evolved from apes and that life on Earth began billions of years ago, but Gibbs said Abraham "truly believes there was no conflict between religion and his job."

Woods Hole officials released a statement saying, "The Institution firmly believes that its actions and those of its employees concerning Dr. Abraham were entirely lawful," and that the center does not discriminate on the basis of religion.

In a 2004 letter to Abraham, his boss, Woods Hole senior scien tist Mark E. Hahn, wrote that Abraham said he did not want to work on "evolutionary aspects" of the National Institutes of Health grant for which he was hired, even though the project clearly required scientists to use the principles of evolution in their analyses and writing.

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of cases pitting creationists against scientists in academic settings. Last year, a University of Rhode Island student was awarded a doctorate in geosciences despite opposition after it became known that he was a creationist. Earlier this year, an Iowa State University astronomer claimed he was denied tenure because he did not believe in evolution.

Like these cases, the Abraham lawsuit pointedly raises the question: Can people work in a scientific field if they don't believe in its basic tenets?

"I have a cleaning woman who is a Seventh-day Adventist and neither of us feel any tension," said Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at Florida State University who has written extensively on creationism and evolutionary biology. "Yet, what is a person doing in an evolutionary lab when they don't believe in evolution . . . and didn't tell anybody they didn't believe in evolution?"

Abraham did not return a telephone call seeking comment. An Indian citizen, he now works at Liberty University, a Christian university in Lynchburg, Va., founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell.
more stories like this

He has a master's degree in biology and a philosophy doctorate, both from St. John's University in New York, a university spokeswoman said. He was hired by Hahn's marine biology lab in March 2004 because of his expertise working with zebra fish and in toxicology and developmental biology, according to court documents. He did not tell anyone his creationist views before being hired. Hahn's lab, according to its website, studies how aquatic animals respond to chemical contaminants by examining ". . . mechanisms from a comparative/evolutionary perspective."

In October 2004, both agree, Abraham made a passing comment to Hahn saying he did not believe in evolution.

"My supervisor appeared angry and asked me what I meant," Abraham wrote in a 2005 complaint he filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. "My supervisor and I had a follow up meeting during which my supervisor informed me that if I do not believe in evolution, then he was paying me for only 7 to 10 percent of the work I was doing under the grant."

Abraham said he told Hahn he would do extra work to compensate and "was willing to discuss evolution as a theory."

But on Nov. 17, Hahn asked him to resign, pointing out in the letter that Abraham should have known of evolution's centrality to the project because it was evident from the job advertisement and grant proposal.

". . . You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work," Hahn wrote in the letter, which the commission provided to the Globe. "This position is incompatible with the work as proposed to NIH and with my own vision of how it should be carried out and interpreted."

Abraham's last day at the lab was Dec. 14, 2004.

The commission dismissed his complaint earlier this year. The commission said Abraham was terminated because his request not to work on evolutionary aspects of the project would be challenging for Woods Hole because the research was based on evolutionary theories.

But Gibbs said that Abraham, after disclosing his religious beliefs to Hahn, was subjected to a hostile work environment. "There was a systematic attempt for him to change his beliefs or resign," Gibbs said. "His life has been turned upside down by this."

Eugenie C. Scott, executive director for the National Center for Science Education, which defends the teaching of evolution in public schools, said Abraham was clearly being disingenuous when he applied for the job because he was hired to work in the field of developmental biology.

"It is inconceivable that someone working in developmental biology at a major research institution would not be expected to deal intimately with evolution," she said. "A flight school hiring instructors wouldn't ask whether they accepted that the earth was spherical; they would assume it. Similarly, Woods Hole would have assumed that someone hired to work in developmental biology would accept that evolution occurred. It's part and parcel of the science these days."

Todd Wallack of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Beth Daley can be reached at bdaley@globe.com.

Comments 1 - 50 of 70 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #95816 by HeathenAngel on December 9, 2007 at 9:22 am

 avatarAnd as someone pointed out the other day.. either here or one of the other myriad sites that I visit.. If I were a Baptist Minister and claimed to NOT believe in any deities.. how long do you think I would have my job?

Other Comments by HeathenAngel

2. Comment #95824 by Mike O'Risal on December 9, 2007 at 9:38 am

 avatarFor more on this, including a link to a copy of the complaint filed in Federal Court, see:

http://vyoma108.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-on-nathaniel-abrahamwoods-hole.html

It'd be pretty funny to read the thing if this were only a parody. Not that it isn't close to one, but a prestigious research institution is losing money over this nonsense.

Other Comments by Mike O'Risal

3. Comment #95833 by Dax on December 9, 2007 at 9:59 am

"I was applying for tenure as an Astronomy Professor and they didn't hire me because I told them I do not believe in a heliocentric solar system. *cry* *cry*"

Other Comments by Dax

4. Comment #95835 by The Architect on December 9, 2007 at 10:03 am

 avatarIf you are incapable of understanding the work and research you're trying to conduct, then you are unsuitable for the job. I fail to see how this is even a religious issue. Either he really does not understand the concept of evolution, or he is lying to himself and others. Either way, he is in no condition to perform his duties and is rightly dismissed.

Other Comments by The Architect

5. Comment #95836 by kraut on December 9, 2007 at 10:14 am

Evolution is not a matter of believe, but the underpinning of biology.
The bible on the other hand has no scientific value at all as evidence.

If you as a so called "scientist" believe that the bible supercedes the collected works of scientific work on evolution since the middle 1800's, then you are simply incapable in performing your job and should not have gotten ths position in the first place, as it makes you unsuitable as a teacher of science and an intelligent participant in any discussion.

"But on Nov. 17, Hahn asked him to resign, pointing out in the letter that Abraham should have known of evolution's centrality to the project because it was evident from the job advertisement and grant proposal."

Simply a case of fraudulently applying for a position you are not suited for. Case closed.

Other Comments by kraut

6. Comment #95837 by Matt7895 on December 9, 2007 at 10:16 am

 avatar"he did not accept evolution as scientific fact."

Hahaha.

Other Comments by Matt7895

7. Comment #95840 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on December 9, 2007 at 10:29 am

"Plaintiff does not acknowledge evolution as an undisputed scientific fact, but rather as a scientific theory."


Wierd, I just don't get this. The plaintiff seems to appreciate what the rest of the scientific community already knows - that it's not a fact but a theory. But then he whines on as though this is a bad thing?! Truely this shows the person is an incompetant plank if he can't understand basic scientific principles.

I smell a rat. It seems very apparent that this was a setup. It would be nice if the plaintiff's recolection of events was true, but some how I get the feeling he's being just a little misleading with his story telling.

Personaly I hope this goes to court - it would be a good opportunity to completely destroy that creationist bullshit about it being "only a theory".

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

8. Comment #95844 by Mike O'Risal on December 9, 2007 at 10:37 am

 avatarI'm rather curious about the context of the "casual conversation" between Abraham and Hahn, He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy. A postdoc telling the PI on his grant that he doesn't believe in the entire basis of the lab's research doesn't sound like something all that casual to me. I have a hunch, though I have no evidence, that Abraham had already told others in the lab and/or been outright prostletyzing before the "casual conversation" took place.

If folks want a real gasp-and-a-laugh, though, check out the loons that are representing Abraham free of charge:

http://www.christianlaw.org/

They take cases AND do prayer requests, and they don't charge fees to people who sabotage research centers, apparently.

And does it strike anybody else as indicative of a set-up that Abraham stepped straight from WHOI to an associate professor position at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University? He never published a single paper, either. Why would Liberty University even know who Abraham was if they hadn't discussed some sort of reward once Abraham "came out" and thus set the stage for this lawsuit?

Other Comments by Mike O'Risal

9. Comment #95846 by Jack Rawlinson on December 9, 2007 at 10:43 am

 avatar"...his Christian belief that the Bible presents a true account of human creation."

Thereby proving he is not a scientist, does not respect scientific method or evidence, and is therefore wholly unsuited to being a science teacher.

Correct decision.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

10. Comment #95850 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 10:50 am

I accept (from what I have read) that it's difficult to conceive of someone working as an evolutionary biologist and not believing in evolution (though I think that, to be fair, we should hear the other side of the story). What I wonder is whether a scientist (and there are doubters - not all of them Christian) who is not committed to the evolutionary paradigm as it stands (Darwinian natural selection) but who is not a young earth creationist would be in danger of losing their job in a scientific field on that basis. What about theistic evolutionists or ID proponents with credentials equivalent to those of Michael Behe? Dawkins has insisted that evolution implies atheism, but not all evolutionists agree. I feel that this case might be the beginning of a slippery slope.

I take the point made by one of you that you would not be expected to get a job as a Baptist minister if you said you were an atheist. But the analogy is fraught. It sort of confirms the impression that faith and science are at war with each other. It gives the impression that you can have a job in science if you don't believe in God, and in Religion if you do. Ok I know that's what many of you think! But it is a misrepresentation of both science and faith.

Other Comments by ADH

11. Comment #95853 by Shrunk on December 9, 2007 at 10:53 am

 avatarNow, how does all this square with the ID/creationist position that ID is a scientific "theory", having nothing to do with religion?

I, too, smell a rat. Is it a coincidence that "Expelled" is due for release in a few months?

Other Comments by Shrunk

12. Comment #95854 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 10:58 am

 avatar
What about theistic evolutionists or ID proponents with credentials equivalent to those of Michael Behe?


ID has been clearly identified as evidence-denying creationism.

It sort of confirms the impression that faith and science are at war with each other.


Aren't they?

Other Comments by steve99

13. Comment #95856 by quill on December 9, 2007 at 11:04 am

 avatarADH, this was an evolutionary science lab. The research grant and the job description specifically said he would be working in the field of evolution. There's no reason he SHOULDN'T be fired if it turns out he doesn't accept the field of evolution as a valid science. It directly causes him to be incapable of doing his work.

And by the way, you can cut that BS about there being a number of biological scientists who deny Darwinism. The number is something like 200 worldwide, which is equivalent to 0.001% of the scientific community. Simply put, evolution is as accepted in biology as heliocentrism is in astronomy or multiplication is in mathematics.

Other Comments by quill

14. Comment #95858 by Bonzai on December 9, 2007 at 11:04 am

Well I am sure some Christian somewhere will say that Mother Theresa didn't believe in God for forty years but they didn't kick her out. :-)

Other Comments by Bonzai

15. Comment #95859 by Mike O'Risal on December 9, 2007 at 11:07 am

 avatarHuh... the attorney representing Abraham was also the lead attorney on the infamous Terri Schiavo case (for the keep-the-braindead-woman-hooked-to-the-machine side, of course), and he was himself a graduate of Liberty University who maintains close ties with that bastion of crap.

Yes, there is definitely a rat to be smelt here.

Other Comments by Mike O'Risal

16. Comment #95861 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 11:12 am

Quill, why do you equate "Darwinism" with "evolution". It seems to me that while there is evidence for evolution, it is turning out to be rather different from what Darwin envisaged.

Other Comments by ADH

17. Comment #95869 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on December 9, 2007 at 11:33 am

"(though I think that, to be fair, we should hear the other side of the story)."

What other side of the story, do you mean the university's? Because we've already seen Abraham's version of events and already it doesn't add up.



"What about theistic evolutionists or ID proponents with credentials equivalent to those of Michael Behe?"

Behe has no credentials - he's a joke. No peer reviewed work, ID discredited as the costumed creationism that it is and not a shred of science around. No, he wouldn't get a job because he falls at the first hurdle of being a scientist - that is get the evidence and then use that to construct a conclusion. Behe likes to do it the other way round. ID has no evidence to back it up, despite many years of searching and is about as unscientific as you can get. Any scientist working so closely with evolution who starts spouting ID should get the sack immediatly for being so unscientific.

What about a theistic evolutionist? Well, for the few of them that actualy exist (because quite frankly they are rarer than honest politicians), I can't realy see a problem. Those theistic evolutionists that I've read are very adept at compartmentalising. While at work they are good scientists, following all the good scientific practices and not letting their religion interfere with the science. After all, they are some of the biggest proponents of that old lie "science and faith are compatible".

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

18. Comment #95871 by Ultraviolet G on December 9, 2007 at 11:34 am

ADH: "It seems to me that while there is evidence for evolution, it is turning out to be rather different from what Darwin envisaged."

..You know I always try to avoid this tone of argument, but..

It "seems" that way to you because *you don't understand modern biology*.

Please don't make such pompous statements, be humble about what you do and do not know.

What Darwin observed, reasoned and imagined has been supported in all its basic principles (Eg. the discovery 100 years later of the precise method of inheritance of all living things, which happens to fit his logical prediction perfectly!)

It has also been added to and extended by all kinds of interesting new discoveries and clever ideas (for example Dawkins' "extended phenotypes").

The only people who say fatously simple disparaging comments like "it seems to me that there are problems with Darwinism" or "I'm not convinced by (insert currently fashionable argument from ignorance here, say, the baterial flagellum)" are people who *don't know what they are talking about*.

I could just as easily say "quantum mechanics is turning out rather different from what Heisenberg envisaged"..it might make me feel confident and clever, but the truth is I know almost nothing about quantum mechanics.

Other Comments by Ultraviolet G

19. Comment #95874 by Ultraviolet G on December 9, 2007 at 11:40 am

Oh, and this should be a non-story.

If I go for a job as a Medical Doctor and after qualifying say "by the way, I don't believe that the lungs oxygenate the blood"; I should lose my job there and then for being a liar, a fraud, and incompetent to do a good job.

Why is it so many people think it's ok to lie and trick others "for Jesus"? It baffles me.

Other Comments by Ultraviolet G

20. Comment #95876 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 11:45 am

 avatar
it is turning out to be rather different from what Darwin envisaged.


Not really. The principle Darwin suggested as the mechanism of evolution - Natural Selection - has not been questioned.

But even if it turn out different, that is irrelevant. Darwin had a major impact because he discovered that complexity could arise without a creator.

Other Comments by steve99

21. Comment #95877 by quill on December 9, 2007 at 11:49 am

 avatarFrom ADH:
Quill, why do you equate "Darwinism" with "evolution". It seems to me that while there is evidence for evolution, it is turning out to be rather different from what Darwin envisaged.
Answer: Because Darwinian evolution is the type of evolution that is accepted by every single natural history museum and every single biological science journal and every single university biology department throughout the entire world, and has been for the past 150 years, despite your objections that things are turning out "rather different from what Darwin envisaged" and that all of those institutions are either composed of buffoons who don't know as much about their own fields of science as you do, or are taking part in a vast conspiracy against the truth.

I was making the point that evolution is as accepted in biology as heliocentrism is in astronomy. What type of evolution would I be referring to if not Darwinian evolution? Lamarckian evolution perhaps? Is that the type that has been accepted as mainstream science for the past century and a half?

No, that would be Darwinian evolution.

I hope that answers your question.


Other Comments by quill

22. Comment #95886 by mandrellian on December 9, 2007 at 12:14 pm

From the article: "...he now works at Liberty University..."

...which pretty much sums up exactly what kind of "scientist" he is.

Other Comments by mandrellian

23. Comment #95899 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 12:36 pm

 avatarit is turning out to be rather different from what Darwin envisaged.

The "difference", such as it is, is that we are filling in the details. Darwin knew nothing about microbiology, DNA or chromosomes, yet these discoveries all support evolution as outlined by Darwin. Consider the incredible intricacy, complexity and frequent imperfection of these detailed biological interlocking systems. If the basic premise had of been wrong, our deepening understanding of biology would have blown Darwin out of the water. Instead we see the polar opposite. Endless mountains of supporting evidence.

The filling in of the blanks continues to prove Darwin correct, and there has been nothing, despite the best efforts of the Discovery Institute and similar pretenders, to contradict the primary principles.

The resistance to evolution is pure and unadulterated religion, nothing else, and it is deeply disingenous of you to represent it as honest enquiry. Frankly it's a great disappointment. Well, perhaps you have deluded yourself in your obvious ignorance of the overwhelming certainty of the principle (if not the detail), that this is the case. That is the kindest characterisation I can find for your position.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

24. Comment #95916 by Dr Benway on December 9, 2007 at 1:15 pm

 avatarI think "religion" is a huge misdirection. Everytime I hear that word from now on, I'm gonna say, "You don't mean 'religion.' You mean, truth claims without any corroborative evidence to back them up."

This guy was fired for preferring unsubstantiated truth claims over corroborated evidence.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

25. Comment #95918 by Nick Good on December 9, 2007 at 1:23 pm

 avatarGood thread on this at the Volokh conspiricy on which I chirped a bit.

http://volokh.com/posts/1197041977.shtml

Other Comments by Nick Good

26. Comment #95920 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 1:26 pm

"Frankly it's a great disappointment. Well, perhaps you have deluded yourself in your obvious ignorance of the overwhelming certainty of the principle (if not the detail), that this is the case. That is the kindest characterisation I can find for your position."

Why a disappointment? Because you thought I was edging towards skepticism? Sorry to disappoint. I have no problem with Evolution by the way. But positting a materialistic origin for the universe and for life is also clearly unsubstatiated. In that sense it is a "faith": "matter-cum-energy" of the gaps. I'm afraid I will continue to disappoint you if you thought my theism was beginning to waver.

Other Comments by ADH

27. Comment #95923 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 1:30 pm

 avatar
But positting a materialistic oriin for the universe and for life is clearly a metaphysical position.


I don't think that is what is being argued. The problem is when people claim, without evidence, to know what the origin of the universe of of life is. We just don't know. And it is a little bit premature to claim it was God, isn't it?

In that sense it is a "faith": "matter-cum-energy" of the gaps.


Gosh no. We assume nothing. We are simply trying to use the tools that have worked in the past to probe further.

The problem with your approach is that theist explanations have been thrown out and replaced by naturalistic ones at an increasing pace over the centuries. It does make me wonder at what point the theists will see where the trend leads.

Other Comments by steve99

28. Comment #95926 by occam's machete on December 9, 2007 at 1:33 pm

I'm a biochemist who came to the US to do my graduate research in a microbiology lab. When I discovered that two (2!!) of my fellow lab mates reject evolution, I was shocked! The principal investigator knows about this and she doesn't care (since it doesn't directly impact on the work we do). I'm very discouraged about the whole thing, I've tried to argue with them but they take it as a religious matter so it's outside the boundaries of polite conversation.

Other Comments by occam's machete

29. Comment #95927 by Mike O'Risal on December 9, 2007 at 1:34 pm

 avatarADH wrote:
But positting a materialistic oriin for the universe and for life is clearly a metaphysical position. I'm afraid I will continue to disappoint you if you thought my theism was beginning to waver.

Evolutionary theory, as I'm sure has been pointed out to you before, addresses neither of these topics. This is a rather frequent canard brought out by Creationists, and particularly by Intelligent Design nitwits, so your bringing it forth yet again makes it easy to understand why someone might confuse you with one of these. So does your use of the term "Darwinism" which, at least in the US, is a term used exclusively by evolution-deniers as a descriptive for those they accuse of attaching a religious significance to Charles Darwin's work.

All of which is entirely off-topic in the case of a postdoc taking a position in a lab working in developmental/evolutionary biology under false pretense, by the way, which is what this thread was about to begin with. There is some background on the lab itself, however, and about the kind of work they do available here:

http://vyoma108.blogspot.com/2007/12/creationist-post-doc-who-refused-to.html

If you can explain how abiogenesis theory figures into anything the lab does, and would therefore have a bearing on the rather despicable actions of Nathaniel Abraham, feel free to do so here.

Other Comments by Mike O'Risal

30. Comment #95930 by communsensetoldme on December 9, 2007 at 1:40 pm

 avatarcould this be a tactic made by creationists to destroy science from the inside?? O.O!

Other Comments by communsensetoldme

31. Comment #95933 by Shrunk on December 9, 2007 at 1:48 pm

 avatarADH:

But positting a materialistic origin for the universe and for life is also clearly unsubstatiated. In that sense it is a "faith": "matter-cum-energy" of the gaps


I disagree. It is not a matter of faith because it can be emprically verified or falsified.

And, again, there is no evidence Abraham was fired for his religious beliefs. He was fired for not understanding evolution, which was a matter of competence for his position.

Other Comments by Shrunk

32. Comment #95936 by SilentMike on December 9, 2007 at 1:52 pm

I'd like to show my support for Nathaniel Abraham's brave position.

As a cumputer scientist in the making I truely hope that the fact that I do not believe in computability and computational complexity won't get in the way of my academic career. My best friend is a physicist that doesn't believe in relativity, and his wife is a chemist that doesn't believe in chemical elements. I haven't discussed this with them but I'm sure they would support Nathaniel Abraham's stance as well.

Other Comments by SilentMike

33. Comment #95940 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 2:03 pm

 avatarWhy a disappointment? Because you thought I was edging towards skepticism?

Well yes. However, are you suggesting you're not skeptical about anything? Or just not skeptical about whatever religious claims you've grown up with, and isn't that a wierd kind of compartmentalisation?

Sorry to disappoint. I have no problem with Evolution by the way. But positting a materialistic origin for the universe and for life is also clearly unsubstatiated.

You seem to be blurring evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology here. Let me take issue with your comment about evolution though. If you think creationism, or ID have any validity whatever (and your posts on this thread, at least point in this direction), then I'm afraid you do have a problem with evolution. The kind of problem that those musing how "alchemists might have a point, and need a fair hearing", have with chemistry.

As regards a "materialistic origin" for the universe, I suppose you've got me there. Although given that this wasn't the topic at hand, congratulations are hardly in order:-) Seriously though, no one has a clue where the universe came from, but the hypothesis "created by an invisible, all powerful, eternal super being" (how would you know) is no more compelling than "the result of random quantum fluctuations".

Plus "random quantum fluctuations" is neater, don't you think? It doesn't require the explanation of winged horses, battles in heaven, virgin births, resurrections, how any of this can be reliably known or why every successful religion steals the best bits from predecessors, and co-opts their holidays:-)

Oh ... and no dietary demands, nothwithstanding all that talk about mans inhumanity to meat on the other thread.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

34. Comment #95953 by Double Bass Atheist on December 9, 2007 at 2:28 pm

 avatarFor the millionth time… evolution is not a "belief." There's a famous quote (I can't recall who said it) "A belief is what you have when you substitute emotion for evidence."

My dear ADH, it appears you have confused several topics. First, as pointed out by a previous poster, Mike O'Risal, evolution says nothing about the origins of life. That's abiogenesis, and is an entirely separate theory. Creationists also frequently mention origin of the universe (Big Bang) when attacking evolution, which is even sillier!

Back on topic… There is absolutely no doubt that Nathaniel Abraham should have been fired. What credible scientific institution wants a non-scientist working for them? Now, can work at Liberty where he'll fit right in.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

35. Comment #95990 by Ducklike on December 9, 2007 at 4:19 pm

 avatar
He has a master's degree in biology and a philosophy doctorate, both from St. John's University in New York


Please excuse my ignorance in this area (I'm neither American nor a Biologist), but I have some questions:

1) How did Abraham get a master's degree in biology if he doesn't believe in evolution?
2) Aren't their any educational standards at the university level in the USA?
3) Shouldn't St. John's University be found lacking in some respect here as well?

I would think that any employer in the field of biology would be hastily checking their records for employees who have graduated from SJU.

Other Comments by Ducklike

36. Comment #96001 by occam's machete on December 9, 2007 at 4:50 pm

<<1) How did Abraham get a master's degree in biology if he doesn't believe in evolution?>>

As it turns out, biology is a pretty broad term... You could know next to nothing about evolution and yet get a master's degree (or a phd) in physical biochemistry, or plant physiology, or any other specialized field which does not deal with evolution on a daily basis (yes, I know that evolution is at the core, but so is quantum theory at the core of all chemistry and yet one can do organic synthesis without ever writing down a wave function).

Other Comments by occam's machete

37. Comment #96002 by Frankus1122 on December 9, 2007 at 4:59 pm

 avatar
I think "religion" is a huge misdirection. Everytime I hear that word from now on, I'm gonna say, "You don't mean 'religion.' You mean, truth claims without any corroborative evidence to back them up."

I like this. It is a bit like Sam Harris's wish to abandon "atheist" as a nomenclature. I am not an atheist I am just a person who goes with the best available evidence. I am a sound thinker. I am rational. I am reasonable. How about you?

Other Comments by Frankus1122

38. Comment #96009 by bluebird on December 9, 2007 at 5:30 pm

 avatarDouble Bass Atheist, I had not heard that quote; I like it, & found it here:
http://www.the-ridges.net/evac1.html


There's a link to an interview with R.D. on this site, too.

Other Comments by bluebird

39. Comment #96021 by dragonfirematrix on December 9, 2007 at 6:51 pm

 avatarFirst and foremost, it is the Law of Evolution.

As for me, here are just a couple of ideas. More examples can easily be listed. Please add more:

1) Children in school need the facts and truth of science to compete with the intelligent on Earth, not the fantasies believed by those who are unable to grasp facts, truth, or reality

2) If a person needs serious medical care, they want a doctor hired who is highly skilled in the science of medicine, not a doctor trying to cure with beliefs and prayer

Please add examples of your own to this list.

Secular Humanist,

Wayne

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

40. Comment #96026 by Double Bass Atheist on December 9, 2007 at 7:16 pm

 avatarCoreTemp - I don't think it's matter "getting smart." It's simply that when theists post here are we supposed to just let their comments go without response? If/when that occurs these people think, on some level, that they've actually made a solid debate point… and one that those nasty atheists can possibly answer. 'Devolved' (remember him?) use to post here frequently and people absolutely destroyed his arguments, with humor and style. Wonderful work people!
Some highly intelligent individuals regularly post here. We all get the two-fold benefit of enjoying their writings and gaining fodder for our own debates.

Bluebird – thanks for the link!

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

41. Comment #96045 by Ben Jennings on December 9, 2007 at 9:10 pm

 avatarIn other news, an English teacher has been fired for not believing in the alphabet.

Other Comments by Ben Jennings

42. Comment #96052 by Mr. Grape on December 9, 2007 at 9:56 pm

If you were hired as a doctor and told your boss you didn't believe in trying to save people who were going into cardiac arrest, you would be fired. If I, or anybody here, were to tell the boss that you didn't believe in the companies "objectives" you would be fired. The only reason this gets a lawsuit and a headline is because religion gets special privileges.

Other Comments by Mr. Grape

43. Comment #96070 by windweaver on December 9, 2007 at 11:40 pm

 avatar
Seriously though, no one has a clue where the universe came from


Actually Brian, physicists are reasonably sure that the universe emergered as a result of a spontaneous quantum fluctuation (yes, I'm aware that you did point this out to ADH). If we had a big enough hadron collider (much bigger than CERN for example) we could actually get some hard evidence for this. Physicist Victor Stenger has pointed out that no physical laws are violated in the springing in to existence of something from nothing. Put simply, a state of "somethingness"(for want of a better word) is more stable than a state of "nothingness". So it is not really true to say that "no one has a clue" about how the universe got here.
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html

Other Comments by windweaver

44. Comment #96096 by robotaholic on December 10, 2007 at 1:44 am

 avatarHow can you be in a field of research and already have all the answers? I mean- there is nothing to investigate if god did it all...

not that I have hiv, but if I did, I surely wouldn't want ppl like abraham working on a cure. Just think of how the virus evolves/mutates/changes- it doesn't seem possible that a microbiologist studying it could refuse to believe in evolution)

Oh and on ADH - I think if we ignore it, it might go away - I mean anyone as vaccuous as a creationist only comes here for the attention anyway -

Other Comments by robotaholic

45. Comment #96101 by Bonzai on December 10, 2007 at 1:57 am

robo


you can hit the delete button on the upper right hand corner (the X next to "edit") to get rid of the multiple posts.

Other Comments by Bonzai

46. Comment #96103 by Duff on December 10, 2007 at 2:06 am

I thinks it was really, really nice how several of you took some valuable time to respond to the comments of ADH. Your responses were cogent, reasoned, intelligent and most of all, scientific. But, I'm afraid, because ADH is a stupid, moronic, uneducated fuckwit, your efforts will go unrewarded.

Other Comments by Duff

47. Comment #96110 by The Anti-Pope on December 10, 2007 at 2:36 am

 avatarBy Eris (I'm an atheist Discordian :D) I swear I cannot grasp the way these people think, how could they be a biologist and not accept evolution? It reminds me of 1984 doublethink (only recently read it, great book!), it's just so odd.... creationist biologist trully is an oxymoron in my opinion.

Other Comments by The Anti-Pope

48. Comment #96111 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 2:42 am

 avatar
Actually Brian, physicists are reasonably sure that the universe emergered as a result of a spontaneous quantum fluctuation


Not really. There are new ideas that should be testable in the new future, such as the ekpyrotic origin.

And, as for ADH, I don't think insults are appropriate. Like it or not, his views are mainstream Christianity, and we aren't going to get anywhere by calling him 'moronic' or 'vaccuous'.

Other Comments by steve99

49. Comment #96117 by Mike O'Risal on December 10, 2007 at 3:03 am

 avatarI've been looking over Liberty University's "doctrinal statement" this morning:

http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=6907

As well as their Faculty Handbook:

http://www.liberty.edu/media/1109/FacultyHandbook.pdf (warning: 185 page PDF!)

After reviewing those, I can't help but wonder how Abraham can bleat with a straight face that he was "fired for his beliefs." These documents make clear that anyone at Liberty University can assuredly be dismissed for their beliefs, and Abraham had to agree to these rules when he accepted a position there. Nobody who was concerned about academic freedom could possibly look at this great heap of religious dogma, disagreement with which is grounds for the immediate termination of even a tenured lecturer, and say that academic and free inquiry could function in such an environment.

Other Comments by Mike O'Risal

50. Comment #96121 by stephenray on December 10, 2007 at 3:08 am

Know what I find most offensive about this claim?

That Hahn was cited as a separate defendant.

As an English lawyer, it's clear that Hahn was acting in the course of his employment when he dismissed Abraham. If he exceeded his authority then that's a matter for his employer to take up.

As far as Abraham was concerned, he's not entitled in my view to have any feelings about Hahn except as the person who administered WHOI policy on this occasion.

The hope is, of course, by citing everybody and his dog the dork and his dorky christian lawyers are hoping to find a chink in the armour.

Bleagh, as Charlie Brown would say.

Other Comments by stephenray
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: