[Cipher13]

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.

Nathaniel Abraham, an Indian national who describes himself as a "Bible-believing Christian," said in the suit filed on Monday in U.S. District Court in Boston that he was fired in 2004 because he would not accept evolution as scientific fact.

The latest U.S. academic spat over science and religion was first reported in The Boston Globe newspaper on Friday. Gibbs Law Firm in Florida, which is representing Abraham, said he was seeking $500,000 in compensation.

The zebrafish specialist said his civil rights were violated when he was dismissed shortly after telling his superior he did not accept evolution because he believed the Bible presented a true account of human creation.

Creationists such as Abraham believe God made the world in six days, as the Bible's Book of Genesis says.

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.

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.

The case underscores tension between scientists, who see creationist views as anti-science, and evangelical Christians who argue that protections of religious freedom enshrined in the U.S. Constitution extend to scientific settings.

Abraham, 35, is now a biology professor at Liberty University, a Baptist school in Virginia founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, a Christian pastor and televangelist.

Reference

Awesome, so he should have been. Carry on.

[dcmacdaddy]

Apart from the fraud of applying for a job that conflicts with one's religious beliefs, I want to know how he went about resolving the cognitive dissonance that must have ben inundating him on a daily basis in his job. I mean, he is a creationist who was working in a research lab as an evolutionary biologist. It is just mind-boggling to think he could have lasted as long as he did without cracking up.

That would be like me (a non-believer) getting a job teaching religious education at a Catholic school and then suing when they fired me for being a non-believer. It's just not something that is done . . . until now. I hope he doesn't win his case but props to him anyways for being able to make the deception last as long as it did. That is an impressive feat all by itself.

[shifuimam]

I'm confused as far as "accepting as scientific fact" - Darwin's theory of evolution is scientific theory, but can it be called irrefutable scientific fact, since it cannot be 100% proven?

Also: not all Creationists believe the universe was created in six days (24-hour periods). In fact, I'd say that the majority don't.

[goMac]

He refused to do the work he was assigned. That's grounds for firing someone.

In Other News: Hindu man gets fired from cow slaughterhouse...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

It's just not something that is done . . . until now.

I don't know about that; it sounds very similar to the cases a year or two back where pharmacists were getting fired for refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm confused as far as "accepting as scientific fact" - Darwin's theory of evolution is scientific theory, but can it be called irrefutable scientific fact, since it cannot be 100% proven?

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is considered to be largely inaccurate nowadays, but evolution is still a fact. It's similar to how Newtonian physics has been superseded by Einstein's work, but that doesn't stop gravity from working.

In short: Evolution is a fact. There are also several relevant scientific theories.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm confused as far as "accepting as scientific fact"

"Scientific fact" is just a term agitators use for "scientific theory," which is much more stringent than the use of the word "theory" in your everyday life. For reference, the "laws" of gravity and thermodynamics are on the same level in physics as evolution is in biology: "theory."

Darwin's theory of evolution is scientific theory

Likewise "darwinism" is used by agitators to mean "evolution" because it makes it easier for them to fool themselves into thinking the theory is only accepted on Darwin's word. Quite the opposite, the theory has evolved (no pun intended) quite significantly since Darwin, and in fact his influence had zero sway over acceptance to the theory in the first place, as before he published it he was a nobody, a dropout. He had no clout at all.

but can it be called irrefutable scientific fact, since it cannot be 100% proven?

No one is calling it irrefutable fact, or proven, except for this douche and his defenders. They're exaggerating so he can get more money. Don't be fooled.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is considered to be largely inaccurate nowadays, but evolution is still a fact.

There's something very strange about that claim.

[goMac]

Why is it an issue whether evolution is true or not? The man refused to do the work he was assigned. It's in the article. That is grounds for firing someone. If he had a problem with evolution he shouldn't have taken the job.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yeah I bet when you think of Darwin as a preacher and his book as a scripture, you get confused when confronted with reality, which bears no resemblance to your imaginings.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

There's something very strange about that claim.

How so? Is it also odd that we don't believe Newtonian physics can adequately explain everything, but gravity hasn't ceased to exist? The fact that one particular model of something is believed to have errors doesn't mean all the observations and premises involved in that model cease to be true.

[hyteckit]

I got fired as priest from the Catholic Church because I didn't believe in no sex before marriage and I enjoy fondling little choir boys.

Okay, I was joking. I was sent to another church.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You should have sued them. You missed out on some big $$$ you deserve for that.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Apart from the fraud of applying for a job that conflicts with one's religious beliefs, I want to know how he went about resolving the cognitive dissonance that must have ben inundating him on a daily basis in his job. I mean, he is a creationist who was working in a research lab as an evolutionary biologist. It is just mind-boggling to think he could have lasted as long as he did without cracking up.

That would be like me (a non-believer) getting a job teaching religious education at a Catholic school and then suing when they fired me for being a non-believer. It's just not something that is done . . . until now. I hope he doesn't win his case but props to him anyways for being able to make the deception last as long as it did. That is an impressive feat all by itself.

If he wins, I'm marching over to the nearest church and demanding a job as a Sunday school teacher. I'm a highly qualified teacher, so if they allow my atheism to bar me from working with them then I'll have clear grounds for a discrimination suit.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is considered to be largely inaccurate nowadays, but evolution is still a fact. It's similar to how Newtonian physics has been superseded by Einstein's work, but that doesn't stop gravity from working.

In short: Evolution is a fact. There are also several relevant scientific theories.

Um...in what way is Darwin's Theory of Evolution largely innacurate?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Um...in what way is Darwin's Theory of Evolution largely innacurate?

Are you surprised that it would be? No theory is perfect, and so inevitably over time, as our understanding of the subject becomes better, the theories will be found to be more and more inaccurate and eventually replaced with something better.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm confused as far as "accepting as scientific fact" - Darwin's theory of evolution is scientific theory, but can it be called irrefutable scientific fact, since it cannot be 100% proven?

Also: not all Creationists believe the universe was created in six days (24-hour periods). In fact, I'd say that the majority don't.

like Hugh Ross
Reasons To Believe: Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Kenneth Samples, David Rogstad, Jeff Zweerink

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Um...in what way is Darwin's Theory of Evolution largely innacurate?

I think the biggest aspect that was found to be inaccurate was gradualism. Also, the blobs of biomass of Darwin's time turned out to be discrete units of DNA (in other words Mendel's work was not what Darwin anticipated).

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Apart from the fraud of applying for a job that conflicts with one's religious beliefs, I want to know how he went about resolving the cognitive dissonance that must have ben inundating him on a daily basis in his job. I mean, he is a creationist who was working in a research lab as an evolutionary biologist. It is just mind-boggling to think he could have lasted as long as he did without cracking up.

That would be like me (a non-believer) getting a job teaching religious education at a Catholic school and then suing when they fired me for being a non-believer. It's just not something that is done . . . until now. I hope he doesn't win his case but props to him anyways for being able to make the deception last as long as it did. That is an impressive feat all by itself.

Originally Posted by goMac 

He refused to do the work he was assigned. That's grounds for firing someone.

In Other News: Hindu man gets fired from cow slaughterhouse...

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't know about that; it sounds very similar to the cases a year or two back where pharmacists were getting fired for refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Why is it an issue whether evolution is true or not? The man refused to do the work he was assigned. It's in the article. That is grounds for firing someone. If he had a problem with evolution he shouldn't have taken the job.

Talk to the folks in Minnesota that are dealing with Muslim cab drivers that refusing to take passengers that have alcohol or pork products with them, and the clerks at the Minneapolis Target that are refusing to scan alcohol and pork products. If they have a problem with booze and pork they should not be working in jobs that you have deal with them.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think the biggest aspect that was found to be inaccurate was gradualism. Also, the blobs of biomass of Darwin's time turned out to be discrete units of DNA (in other words Mendel's work was not what Darwin anticipated).

Mendel Museum of Genetics

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Talk to the folks in Minnesota that are dealing with Muslim cab drivers that refusing to take passengers that have alcohol or pork products with them, and the clerks at the Minneapolis Target that are refusing to scan alcohol and pork products. If they have a problem with booze and pork they should not be working in jobs that you have deal with them.

Well, I'd say that the taxi drivers are completely within their rights there. If they want to give up on fares and tips that's their problem. Taxi drivers should not be obligated to pick people up if they don't want to.

The Target problem I agree with you on though. If they absolutely refuse to touch pork and alcohol products, they should not be working in a job that requires that.

Also, since when are muslims forbidden from even touching a bottle of alcohol? I though they just weren't allowed to drink it? I know that even touching a pig is supposed to be bad, but even if it's wrapped in plastic?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think the biggest aspect that was found to be inaccurate was gradualism. Also, the blobs of biomass of Darwin's time turned out to be discrete units of DNA (in other words Mendel's work was not what Darwin anticipated).

And yet when I'm involved in the conversation no one seems to acknowledge that gradualism, a.k.a. Darwinism has been disproved. Many people never heard the news, and it's still taught in schools as if it's true.

So if you acknowledge the defeat of gradualism, you're left with punctuated equilibrium; it too is false and even more preposterous than gradualism. Yes, microevolution is true, but macroevolution is false. When people speak of evolution they're ususally referring to macro, and in that sense "evolution" is false. I don't want to rehash the Expelled thread, but I really think people need to take a second look at the facts.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So if you acknowledge the defeat of gradualism, you're left with punctuated equilibrium; it too is false and even more preposterous than gradualism. Yes, microevolution is true, but macroevolution is false. When people speak of evolution they're ususally referring to macro, and in that sense "evolution" is false. I don't want to rehash the Expelled thread, but I really think people need to take a second look at the facts.

Wrong. Punctuated equilibrium is not what you're left with when you get rid of gradualism. Punctuated equilibrium is gradualism. And there are a number of other theories that need to be disproved before you can claim that 'macroevolution' doesn't happen (and even if you did disprove all of them that wouldn't disprove 'macroevolution', only that, if it happens, we don't yet understand how).

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And yet when I'm involved in the conversation no one seems to acknowledge that gradualism, a.k.a. Darwinism has been disproved. Many people never heard the news, and it's still taught in schools as if it's true.

So if you acknowledge the defeat of gradualism, you're left with punctuated equilibrium; it too is false and even more preposterous than gradualism. Yes, microevolution is true, but macroevolution is false. When people speak of evolution they're ususally referring to macro, and in that sense "evolution" is false. I don't want to rehash the Expelled thread, but I really think people need to take a second look at the facts.

Here's what I want to know: If it's so obviously false to anyone with the internet, then why do 99% of the scientists specializing in the relevant fields - and we're talking about a lot of fields - endorse it? Why are the thousands wrong about their fields of expertise, but people with an internet pipe but not the specialized scientific training (such as you) right? Are people without training but with the internet smarter and more knowledgeable than the people with the training? That doesn't make sense. Are they brainwashed by their education? Are they conspirators in a great evolution cover-up?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Well, I'd say that the taxi drivers are completely within their rights there. If they want to give up on fares and tips that's their problem. Taxi drivers should not be obligated to pick people up if they don't want to.

The Target problem I agree with you on though. If they absolutely refuse to touch pork and alcohol products, they should not be working in a job that requires that.

Also, since when are muslims forbidden from even touching a bottle of alcohol? I though they just weren't allowed to drink it? I know that even touching a pig is supposed to be bad, but even if it's wrapped in plastic?

Sorry. I reread the article. The clerks are refusing to handle just the pork products and the cabbies are asking passengers what they have in their bags at the airport. If they have alcohol or refuse to tell them, they will not let them in their cab.

Minneapolis airport approves stiffer penalties for cabbies who refuse customers with alcohol - International Herald Tribune

the article say 70% of the cabbies are muslim

Target shifts Muslims who won’t sell pork - U.S. business - MSNBC.com

Islam teaches that pigs are unclean and eating pork is a sin, and some Muslims feel selling or handling pork is also forbidden because it would make them complicit in the sins of others.

this the reason the cabbies gave as to why they would not take passengers with alcohol, they would be complicit in the sin of others

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Sorry. I reread the article. The clerks are refusing to handle just the pork products and the cabbies are asking passengers what they have in their bags at the airport. If they have alcohol or refuse to tell them, they will not let them in their cab.

Ah. I still say the cabbies are fully within their rights to do so (or at least should be, I don't know what the actual local laws are). It just means more money for the more liberal cabbies. This is nothing more or less than market competition.

I'd question whether or not packaged pork products should be safe for a Muslim to handle, but that's not really my call to make. If that's what their religious leaders are telling them then they should either quit their jobs, or arrange with their employers to transfer them to a position where they don't have to violate their religious tenets.

I will say that I'm glad I'll be getting picked up at the Minneapolis airport by a friend next month so I don't have to worry about it.

[olePigeon]

I already heard about this case and he was legitimately fired. The project is funded to do research based on evolution. If the person doesn't believe evolution is at least a possibility, his or her data will be biased.

You can believe 2 + 2 = 5, but you're not going to retain a job as an accountant. Simple as that.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And yet when I'm involved in the conversation no one seems to acknowledge that gradualism, a.k.a. Darwinism has been disproved. Many people never heard the news, and it's still taught in schools as if it's true.

No, Darwin has not been disproved. Some of his theory has been refined. Proofing one aspect of the theory wrong does not disprove the entire theory.

If Einstein gets one of this theories wrong should we suddenly throw out all of General Relativity? Your argument simply doesn't make sense. Regardless of the specifics, Darwin definitely had the right idea.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I already heard about this case and he was legitimately fired. The project is funded to do research based on evolution. If the person doesn't believe evolution is at least a possibility, his or her data will be biased.

You can believe 2 + 2 = 5, but you're not going to retain a job as an accountant. Simple as that.

Not to mention, again. he flat out refused to do the work and tried to make them give him a different job. Give him a different job? There are no different jobs where he was working.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac 

No, Darwin has not been disproved.

Darwinism is a theory of "descent through gradual modification," and it has been disproved. Darwin himself said that if it could be shown that new species could not arise through gradual modification, his theory would be worthless. And he was right.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Ah. I still say the cabbies are fully within their rights to do so (or at least should be, I don't know what the actual local laws are). It just means more money for the more liberal cabbies. This is nothing more or less than market competition.

I'd question whether or not packaged pork products should be safe for a Muslim to handle, but that's not really my call to make. If that's what their religious leaders are telling them then they should either quit their jobs, or arrange with their employers to transfer them to a position where they don't have to violate their religious tenets.

I will say that I'm glad I'll be getting picked up at the Minneapolis airport by a friend next month so I don't have to worry about it.

I'm not certain I agree with this - airports typically have cartel like agreements with a limited number of cabs, and this potentially places passengers in a position of not being able to get a cab, or waiting an unacceptable period of time. I think that getting a license to operate a limited public service like that should oblige someone not to discriminate. After all, would you feel the same way about a cab driver who would not take black people in their cabs?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Ah. I still say the cabbies are fully within their rights to do so (or at least should be, I don't know what the actual local laws are). It just means more money for the more liberal cabbies. This is nothing more or less than market competition.

I'd question whether or not packaged pork products should be safe for a Muslim to handle, but that's not really my call to make. If that's what their religious leaders are telling them then they should either quit their jobs, or arrange with their employers to transfer them to a position where they don't have to violate their religious tenets.

I will say that I'm glad I'll be getting picked up at the Minneapolis airport by a friend next month so I don't have to worry about it.

Minneapolis airport approves stiffer penalties for cabbies who refuse customers with alcohol - International Herald Tribune

the Target has moved the clerks in question to other areas of the store. The airport has started to get tough with the cabbies since they are 70% of the drivers

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Darwinism is a theory of "descent through gradual modification," and it has been disproved. Darwin himself said that if it could be shown that new species could not arise through gradual modification, his theory would be worthless. And he was right.

You are simply wrong. Back to school for you, I'm afraid!

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I'm not certain I agree with this - airports typically have cartel like agreements with a limited number of cabs, and this potentially places passengers in a position of not being able to get a cab, or waiting an unacceptable period of time. I think that getting a license to operate a limited public service like that should oblige someone not to discriminate. After all, would you feel the same way about a cab driver who would not take black people in their cabs?

I still feel the same way. If the airport doesn't like what the cabbies are doing they can change the agreements and/or only make them with cabs that don't discriminate.

As for cabs who refuse to take black people, let them. But I'm not going to give them any patronage and neither will a lot of other non-black people. Eventually they'll either go out of business and be replaced by someone who picks everyone up or cave to market pressure.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And yet when I'm involved in the conversation no one seems to acknowledge that gradualism, a.k.a. Darwinism has been disproved. Many people never heard the news, and it's still taught in schools as if it's true.

It's because you confuse your terminology. First you always establish (intentionally or otherwise, doesn't matter) that you mean evolution when you say darwinism. Then if you are talking about Darwin's specific conclusions that were disproven, there's no way for anyone to know you don't mean that all of evolution was disproven.

It's like if someone were to try to say that Newtonian dynamics was deposed by general relativity, by first referring repeatedly to the theory of gravity as "Newtonism," then saying that Newton was disproven. No one would know what you meant, because it's completely ambiguous. And while you may be correct that certain aspects of the theory that Newton claimed were later disproven, that doesn't mean the theory of gravity is disproven.

You may think it's some clever subtle jab to keep calling it "darwinism" instead of "evolution" just because it's annoying, like saying "democrat" instead of "democratic," but when it makes you impossible to understand, the joke is on you not them.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Darwin himself said that if it could be shown that new species could not arise through gradual modification, his theory would be worthless. And he was right.

Interesting attempt, but last I checked DNA was still part of the organism, so gradual modification of DNA counts as gradual modification of the organism, even if it produces less-than-gradual changes in phenotype.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I still feel the same way. If the airport doesn't like what the cabbies are doing they can change the agreements and/or only make them with cabs that don't discriminate.

Yes, but it is not the airport who is taking the cabs.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

As for cabs who refuse to take black people, let them. But I'm not going to give them any patronage and neither will a lot of other non-black people. Eventually they'll either go out of business and be replaced by someone who picks everyone up or cave to market pressure.

The trouble is that since airports have exclusive agreements with the cab company, market pressure does not work. People don't have a choice of other cab companies. It may be that there is no economic advantage to taking people with alcohol. That's why we have anti-discrimination laws. But the situation is particularly tricky where a company has an exclusive agreement with a piece of public transport infrastructure like an airport.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Um, what's to stop you from lying about the alcohol?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Talk to the folks in Minnesota that are dealing with Muslim cab drivers that refusing to take passengers that have alcohol or pork products with them, and the clerks at the Minneapolis Target that are refusing to scan alcohol and pork products. If they have a problem with booze and pork they should not be working in jobs that you have deal with them.

True. This is another good example. If these objections were not made known before they were hired for their jobs then they should be fired for not doing their job by refusing to handle certain items (or certain types of passengers). You can't apply for and accept a job and then after you get hired telll your employer that there are parts of the job you won't do. That's just ridiculous.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Um, what's to stop you from lying about the alcohol?

Knowing why he's asking you.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Knowing why he's asking you.

I don't see that stopping most people. "Honestly Marge, I never thought you'd find out"

[peeb]

People should not have to lie to access public transport.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Of all the things to get up in arms about, I don't think a white lie here or there should make the top 10

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't see that stopping most people. "Honestly Marge, I never thought you'd find out"

I don't understand your response. My point is, you're not going to lie about something if you don't realize you need to. What's your point?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Shortly after it makes the news, most people will know they need to. That's kinda the whole point of the news, so that people can know what's going on around town and be informed.

Edit: I didn't know what you meant because you said knowing why would stop them, when you meant not knowing why would. Sorry.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Shortly after it makes the news, most people will know they need to. That's kinda the whole point of the news, so that people can know what's going on around town and be informed.

It's an airport. I imagine a lot of uninformed people from out of town use the cabs. That's kinda the point of the cabs, so out-of-towners can get around town without owning or renting a car.

Now, snideness aside, the airport should post a notice about this fact at the exit of arrivals and let the cabbies know everyone could now be lying to them. That's put a damper on their days.

[Uncle Skeleton]

But half the people will be locals. So now we're talking about half the people in 70% of cabs = 35%, and of those how many will hear the gossip from the guy next to them on the plane, and how many of the rest will hear it from the same place we heard it? And the people who are too good to tell a white lie are likely to be people who are too good to drink, too. I don't see this as a huge problem for that many people.

Get back to me when they refuse to take you for the sin of not being Muslim, or not being Arab. Then it will be interesting.

[Wiskedjak]

In any case:
if you believe against evolution, you shouldn't take a job that requires work based upon evolutionary research.
if you believe against the handling of pork or alcohol, you shouldn't take a job that would likely require you to do so.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I think you're speculating quite a bit.

Edit: jacked

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

In any case:
if you believe against evolution, you shouldn't take a job that requires work based upon evolutionary research.
if you believe against the handling of pork or alcohol, you shouldn't take a job that would likely require you to do so.

I wouldn't go that far. You shouldn't expect to keep your job if you refuse to do it, but I wouldn't want them asking "do you believe in creationism" during the interview. Just keep it to yourself and you'll be fine. Good fences make good neighbors.