[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

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.

No, you can't be asked religious questions in an interview, but I think it's reasonable for someone applying for the job of Cashier at Taget to assume they will encounter customers purchasing alcohol or pork. Likewise, I would find it very unlikely that Nathaniel Abraham didn't know what kind of research was being done at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

The onus is on the person seeking the job to know whether or not they will have any moral conflicts with the work they will be doing. In the case of the cabbies, if they're self employed then they have the right to refuse business, but they need to realize that they may not remain in business for long if they continue to have moral conflicts with the work offered to them.

[Uncle Skeleton]

By me the distinction is between having a belief and acting on it. Some people can't separate the two, but many can. I don't think it's reasonable to say someone can't have a job based on what they believe, only on whether they let those beliefs prevent them from doing the job. You said the former, maybe because for you they are one in the same. I just want to point out that for those of us where they're not, the distinction should be made.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

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.

Well, it used to be that you could be refused service for the sin of not being white, but there is a law against that now.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by peeb 

People should not have to lie to access public transport.

Taxis are not public transport.

[peeb]

Of course they are. But more importantly, where they have exclusive contracts with airports, they are a crucial component of a public transport system.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Are they subsidized by taxes?

[peeb]

Airports? Yes, but what has that got to do with it? A public transport system could perfectly well not be publicly owned.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

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.

But that hasn't happened. There have certainly been refinements of our understanding, but nothing that would render Darwin's model "inaccurate."

[Helmling]

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).

I don't really see the addition of punctuated equilibrium as subtracting anything from Darwin.

[Helmling]

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.

Actually, your understanding is quite faulty. The difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is entirely subjective. These are not distinct entities. If you accept one, then I'm sorry, you're just being stubborn about the other. They're the same thing.

The process is the process. Either it works or it doesn't.

Now, as to "gradualism" and "punctuated equilibrium," both are means by which natural selection operates, from certain vantages. Again, neither has been disproven, they are simply ways of describing the operation of natural selection. There have been populations that evolved gradually, and there have been populations thrown into evolutionary pressure through puctuated equilibrium.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I don't really see the addition of punctuated equilibrium as subtracting anything from Darwin.

It subtracts the extent to which his observations can be generalized, similar to how general relativity and quantum mechanics subtract from the scales to which newtonian dynamics can be generalized.

[peeb]

Yes, but pointing out that general relativity and qm build on newtonian physics does not lead to the conclusion that gravity does not exist.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Maybe it's the bible that proves that. Did God create gravity in Genesis? No? It must be false.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Of course they are. But more importantly, where they have exclusive contracts with airports, they are a crucial component of a public transport system.

No, they aren't. Taxis are privately owned and they are not public transportation. What you are saying is akin to saying that Greyhound is public transportation when it in fact is not either.

[peeb]

I'm trying to make sense of that odd claim - you are saying that busses are not public transportation? I think you are confusing the use of the word 'public' - it refers to use, not ownership. Cars owned by the Federal Government are publicly owned, they are not public transportation, bus lines that are privately owned, but can be used by members of the public are not publicly owned, but they are public transport.

[goMac]

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.

What? There have been real world cases that scientists have observed where a new species has been formed by gradually evolving away from their parent species. Heck, Mendelian genetics alone is proof of this concept. Where did you get this idea from?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You are saying that busses are not public transportation? I think you are confusing the use of the word 'public' - it refers to use, not ownership. Cars owned by the Federal Government are publicly owned, they are not public transportation, bus lines that are privately owned, but can be used by members of the public are not publicly owned, but they are public transport.

I'm not following....

Public transportation is owned by tax payers. They cannot refuse service to anyone.

Private transportation is owned by companies. They are allowed to refuse service when they want to.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I'm not following....

Public transportation is owned by tax payers. They cannot refuse service to anyone.

Nonsense. There is plenty of transportation that is owned by the taxpayer that does not offer service to the public. I just pointed out an example. AirForce One is another example. It is publicly owned, but not public transportation.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Private transportation is owned by companies. They are allowed to refuse service when they want to.

Nonsense. Regardless of who owns them, businesses are not allowed to refuse service to anyone simply because they want to.
You are confused, as I pointed out. The 'public', in public transport, refers to use, not ownership. Greyhound is absolutely public transportation, but a privately owned company.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Nonsense. There is plenty of transportation that is owned by the taxpayer that does not offer service to the public. I just pointed out an example. AirForce One is another example. It is publicly owned, but not public transportation.

Airforce One may be a special case. I would assume it is protected by special federal codes.

Regardless, anything bought with public funds has to be publicly accessible. I work in a school district and this is something we deal with. Technically, our internet connection has to be publicly accessible because it is owned by the tax payers. In the same respect, you can walk into any public University's library and make use of their resources, because again, the University is publicly owned.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Nonsense. Regardless of who owns them, businesses are not allowed to refuse service to anyone simply because they want to.
You are confused, as I pointed out. The 'public', in public transport, refers to use, not ownership. Greyhound is absolutely public transportation, but a privately owned company.

Businesses can and do and refuse service to anyone they want to. Greyhound can refuse to let people on buses. There are only certain exceptions laid out in federal law. You cannot discriminate based on race or religion, neither of which the taxi drivers are doing.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Taxis don't run on fixed routes.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Airforce One may be a special case. I would assume it is protected by special federal codes.

Regardless, anything bought with public funds has to be publicly accessible.

What absolute nonsense. Try getting onto a military base, into a police car, using the mayor's office, or taking a city owned garbage truck for a spin. I don't know whether you are trying to be funny, but your argument is absolutely untenable. Hardly any publicly owned assets are publicly accessible.

Originally Posted by goMac 

I work in a school district and this is something we deal with. Technically, our internet connection has to be publicly accessible because it is owned by the tax payers. In the same respect, you can walk into any public University's library and make use of their resources, because again, the University is publicly owned.

That is simply not true, and even if it were, it does not address the fact that the definition of public transport has nothing to do with ownership, and everything to do with use.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Businesses can do and refuse service to anyone they want to. Greyhound can refuse to let people on buses. There are only certain exceptions laid out in federal law. You cannot discriminate based on race or religion, neither of which the taxi drivers are doing.

Bingo - Greyhound cannot, and neither can taxis, discriminate on the grounds of race, because they are PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. As private transportation, I can discriminate against whomever I like when I am driving my car.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Taxis don't run on fixed routes.

Some do, but still, they fit all of the other elements of the definition, and other definitions of public transport do include them. They are certainly included in most public transportation plans, and considered a central element of public transport by planners.

Public Transportation
Port Townsend Public Transportation, Bus, Dial-A-Ride, Taxi
Transport&Travel @ eCitizen - Public Transport - Taxi

[goMac]

Originally Posted by peeb 

What absolute nonsense. Try getting onto a military base, into a police car, using the mayor's office, or taking a city owned garbage truck for a spin. I don't know whether you are trying to be funny, but your argument is absolutely untenable. Hardly any publicly owned assets are publicly accessible.

AGAIN, these are exceptions under federal codes.

Originally Posted by peeb 

That is simply not true, and even if it were, it does not address the fact that the definition of public transport has nothing to do with ownership, and everything to do with use.

Yes it is. I'm telling you as both a person working in education and a recent higher education student that it is true.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Bingo - Greyhound cannot, and neither can taxis, discriminate on the grounds of race, because they are PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. As private transportation, I can discriminate against whomever I like when I am driving my car.

Again, this is not true. If you operated your own private transportation you cannot discriminate against people based on race and religion. If you ran a restaurant for whites only you would be slapped with a law suit so quickly it would make your head spin.

Greyhound is privately owned, therefore they are subject to the same laws any private business is, and they are allowed to discriminate except for the exceptions I've outlined.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You guys are both saying the same thing: private businesses can't discriminate based on religion. Does that mean you're siding with the evolution denier who got fired for believing in Genesis?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by goMac 

AGAIN, these are exceptions under federal codes.

No, they are not. What 'Federal Codes' are you talking about? Neither the mayor's office nor your city's garbage trucks, nor your local police force are federally protected. The fleet of cars owned by your city is not federal. It is an absolute fact that if a publicly owned asset is available to the general public for transportation, that is a rare exception, not the norm. Show me where this general right of access to anything publicly owned is enshrined?

Originally Posted by goMac 

Yes it is. I'm telling you as both a person working in education and a recent higher education student that it is true.

You are simply wrong. Show me where this is enshrined.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Again, this is not true. If you operated your own private transportation you cannot discriminate against people based on race and religion.

I do operate private transportation, and regularly discriminate. I drive to work every morning, and never stop to pick up blacks (or anyone else, for that matter).

Originally Posted by goMac 

If you ran a restaurant for whites only you would be slapped with a law suit so quickly it would make your head spin.

Greyhound is privately owned, therefore they are subject to the same laws any private business is, and they are allowed to discriminate except for the exceptions I've outlined.

They are, indeed, privately owned, they are also public transport. You don't seem to be listening to the facts that those two are unrelated!

Here are some (more) cities and other major travel sites that think both Greyhound and taxis are public transportation (along with everyone else in the world except you, it seems...)
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/...ends-guide.pdf
City of Arcata - Public Transportation
Public Transportation to Burlington
Public Transportation

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You guys are both saying the same thing: private businesses can't discriminate based on religion. Does that mean you're siding with the evolution denier who got fired for believing in Genesis?

Well, first of all, WHOI is not providing a service to the public in the same way a taxi is - it's not like they are carrying out research that is only available to certain religions. The discrimination issue here is that someone's religious beliefs conflicted with the core mission of the organization. I tend to side with the idea that WHOI is right to be able to hire or fire based on whether someone believes in their core mission. I think a taxi driver who is unable to drive a taxi for someone who is doing something they morally disapprove of (but is not breaking a law) is ill suited for the job of taxi driver.

[Uncle Skeleton]

If I don't believe in the core mission of the department of homeland security, am I ineligible to work for them scanning packages at the shipyard? Kinda sucks for me if that's the best paying job I can get.

Just trying to get you to say it without using the word "believe." Lots of people have jobs they don't believe in, just because they have to pay the mortgage.

[peeb]

I think that if your core belief stopped you from scanning packages that might contain pork or alcohol, that might disbar you, also, I think that if you let it be known that you were fundamentally opposed to the idea of scanning packages at all, that might be grounds for not employing you at that.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You guys are both saying the same thing: private businesses can't discriminate based on religion. Does that mean you're siding with the evolution denier who got fired for believing in Genesis?

I'm saying it's a non issue. He wasn't fired because he was Christian. He was fired because he refused to do the work he was assigned.

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, they are not. Neither the mayor's office nor your city's garbage trucks, nor your local police force are federally protected. The fleet of cars owned by your city is not federal. It is an absolute fact that if a publicly owned asset is available to the general public for transportation, that is a rare exception, not the norm. Show me where this general right of access to anything public is enshrined?

The police cannot refuse service actually. They aren't a transportation entity, but they are under the same rules. The issue is that when their cars were bought the legislation was specifically written so that they would only be driven by the police department. That said, the police are not allowed to discriminate and only offer service for certain people, and the use of police cars for police purposes only was approved by the public.

I don't know what real world experience you have with this but the district I work for has a lot of public bond money, so we are very careful on what we can and can't do. Again, Universities are a perfect example of this. Universities are publicly funded, and therefore must make all their resources available, and offer their classes to the tax payers at no profit.

Originally Posted by peeb 

You are simply wrong. Show me where this is enshrined.

Um. Seriously? The entire United States government is built on this concept. Why do you think the Library of Congress exists? Or the National Archives?

Originally Posted by peeb 

I do operate private transportation, and regularly discriminate. I drive to work every morning, and never stop to pick up blacks.

Right. And if you ran your private transportation as a business, but only picked up white people, you'd be slapped with a lawsuit. There are no issues because you are a) Not running a business and b) You are not specifically targeting blacks. I'm assuming you don't drive down the street picking white people up but not blacks.

Originally Posted by peeb 

They are, indeed, privately owned, they are also public transport. You don't seem to be listening to the facts that those two are unrelated!
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/...ends-guide.pdf
City of Arcata - Public Transportation
Public Transportation to Burlington
Public Transportation

They may brand themselves as public transportation but they are not public transportation unless they are subsidized by public funds. Public buses are public transportation because they are paid for by taxes. Amtrak is even public transportation because they are subsidized by the government. The only way Greyhound would be public transportation is if they are paid for out of public funds.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

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

Evolution as the mechanism for the origin of the species is NOT FACT but rather simply one of many theories, no matter how many times it's falsely claimed otherwise (and that's the point in question here). Just because it's the theory with the most (though possibly totally circumstantial) evidence backing it, doesn't make it fact. Suggesting otherwise is hardly "scientific".

..and the guy says he was willing to do the work - just not to essentially take an oath and denounce his religious beliefs. I can't see how that isn't illegal discrimination unless the guy is lying and did refuse to do specific work.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The police cannot refuse service actually.

But we are not talking about service, are we? The claim you made was "Regardless, anything bought with public funds has to be publicly accessible". That is patently wrong. There is a huge difference between the police having to come to give service, and my being able to have access to an asset just because it is publicly owned.

Originally Posted by goMac 

They aren't a transportation entity

Too right they are not! Finally, something that you agree with the rest of the world on!

Originally Posted by goMac 

but they are under the same rules.

No, they are really not. Public transportation companies are governed by a very different set of laws than police forces.

Originally Posted by goMac 

The issue is that when their cars were bought the legislation was specifically written so that they would only be driven by the police department.

So, not accessible to the public then?

Originally Posted by goMac 

the use of police cars for police purposes only was approved by the public.

Like pretty much every other piece of public property.

Originally Posted by goMac 

I don't know what real world experience you have with this but the district I work for has a lot of public bond money, so we are very careful on what we can and can't do. Again, Universities are a perfect example of this. Universities are publicly funded, and therefore must make all their resources available, and offer their classes to the tax payers at no profit.

That would be an artifact of non-profit tax law and their charter, not a general principle. It seems that you have no real experience of these things. It is simply not the case that even state owned universities have to make 'all their resources available'.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Um. Seriously? The entire United States government is built on this concept. Why do you think the Library of Congress exists? Or the National Archives?

Yes, seriously - those things are specifically chartered to give access to the public, in a way that nearly all other public property is not. Where is this general right enshrined?

Originally Posted by goMac 

Right. And if you ran your private transportation as a business, but only picked up white people, you'd be slapped with a lawsuit. There are no issues because you are a) Not running a business

And there you have it - I'm fine, because I am running PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION, not PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION!

Originally Posted by goMac 

They may brand themselves as public transportation

Indeed, they do.

Originally Posted by goMac 

but they are not public transportation unless they are subsidized by public funds.

Where do you get this strange idea from? Can you cite any references?

Originally Posted by goMac 

Public buses are public transportation because they are paid for by taxes.

Where do you get this strange idea from? Can you cite any references?

Originally Posted by goMac 

Amtrak is even public transportation because they are subsidized by the government. The only way Greyhound would be public transportation is if they are paid for out of public funds.

Where do you get this strange idea from? Can you cite any references?

[peeb]

OK, let's end this stupid discussion - let's look at what US law has to say on the topic:

Donate to the Legal Information Institute

[goMac]

Originally Posted by peeb 

But we are not talking about service, are we? The claim you made was "Regardless, anything bought with public funds has to be publicly accessible". That is patently wrong. There is a huge difference between the police having to come to give service, and my being able to have access to an asset just because it is publicly owned.

And again, when the legislation was written and voted on by the public, the funds for police cars were earmarked specifically for police use only. It would be completely possible for the public to fund police cars and allow them to be publicly driven. It's just that most communities are more sane than that.

Where do you think money for police cars comes from?

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, they are really not. Public transportation companies are governed by a very different set of laws than police forces.

And again, the point you are missing is that those laws were passed by the general public. It is completely possible for the public, who is paying the bills for the police cars, to pass new legislation saying that police cars can be publicly driven.

Originally Posted by peeb 

So, not accessible to the public then?

The public decided not to make them publicly accessible. Understand? And it's not considered discrimination because they are not specifically not letting any member of the public drive a car. No member of the public can just drive a police car.

For example, if you had a public bus that drove around and picked no one up, that would be legal. But again, when the bus was purchased the public would have to earmark the funds for the bus with that restriction.

By default, if the public doesn't attach regulations to funds to spend from taxes, whatever is bought by those funds must be publicly accessible.

What you're failing to understand is that the public is the one who sets these rules. The only reason Air Force One does not have to give rides to the public is because the public said that is ok.

Originally Posted by peeb 

That would be an artifact of non-profit tax law and their charter, not a general principle. It seems that you have no real experience of these things. It is simply not the case that even state owned universities have to make 'all their resources available'.

Again, you're flat out wrong. I suggest you actually take a look at publicly funded educational programs. I highly doubt you have any experience in this.

I suggest you look up any public institutions resources and access policy online. There are probably only a few thousand of them online which would confirm this for you. Unfortunately the University I worked for in IT was private, otherwise I could lend some personal experience from a higher ed perspective.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yes, seriously - those things are specifically chartered to give access to the public, in a way that nearly all other public property is not. Where is this general right enshrined?

It's your right because you paid for it. You own a portion of whatever you pay for with your taxes. Dig up whatever public bond or law you want for an example. You have it backwards. Something bought with public funds is by default publicly accessible unless the public decides otherwise.

Originally Posted by peeb 

And there you have it - I'm fine, because I am running PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION, not PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION!

You're not running a business and even if you don't pick up black people you're not discriminating because you don't pick up anyone else either. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by peeb 

OK, let's end this stupid discussion - let's look at what US law has to say on the topic:

Donate to the Legal Information Institute

That doesn't make them publicly owned transportation.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by goMac 

That doesn't make them publicly owned transportation.

Wow! You're getting it! 'Public transportation' does not mean 'publicly owned transportation'! Well done!

[goMac]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Wow! You're getting it! 'Public transportation' does not mean 'publicly owned transportation'! Well done!

Oh c'mon. You knew what everyone meant, you just wanted to be a pain in the butt.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by goMac 

By default, if the public doesn't attach regulations to funds to spend from taxes, whatever is bought by those funds must be publicly accessible.

Once again, I will ask you, where this idea of yours comes from?

Originally Posted by goMac 

Again, you're flat out wrong. I suggest you actually take a look at publicly funded educational programs. I highly doubt you have any experience in this.

Again - show me an example of a public institution where all resources are available.

[QUOTE=goMac;3554107]It's your right because you paid for it. You own a portion of whatever you pay for with your taxes. Dig up whatever public bond or law you want for an example. You have it backwards. Something bought with public funds is by default publicly accessible unless the public decides otherwise.[/QUOTE[
Again, you have provided NO EVIDENCE. Where is this written? Where did you get this idea?

Originally Posted by goMac 

You're not running a business and even if you don't pick up black people you're not discriminating because you don't pick up anyone else either. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Because you are not making any sense. Show me ANYONE who uses the same definition of public transportation as you do - I have showed you laws, dictionaries, cities, public transit authorities, all of whom agree with me.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Oh c'mon. You knew what everyone meant, you just wanted to be a pain in the butt.

No, everyone except you means the same thing - public transit = publicly accessible transit, not publicly owned transit. You are the one making the odd and capricious case that Greyhound is not public transport.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Once again, I will ask you, where this idea of yours comes from?

Answer the question that I've posed to you before. Have you ever worked with public funds?

Originally Posted by peeb 

Again - show me an example of a public institution where all resources are available.

All of them.

Seriously. Go to any public higher ed institution and look at their resource usage policy. You will find a section in that policy on what is not paid for from public funds, and therefore not publicly accessible.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Again, you have provided NO EVIDENCE. Where is this written? Where did you get this idea?

Huh? This is like asking me for evidence that I own a candy bar I buy from the vending machine. You bought it, you own it.

[goMac]

Here are two other examples:

a) I spent a few semesters at a University of Washington campus. Because that was a publicly funded school, all the computers had to have guest access available to them for any member of the public. Before that I went to University of Portland and worked on the IT staff. We did not have to provide guest logins because we were a private University, and were therefore free to restrict usage to our student population. In addition, our library required you to present your student pass to prove to the library you were a student before you could enter. The University of Washington library did not, because again, they are a public institution.

b) The school district I work for currently is publicly funded (obviously). I work for the IT department, and because the computers in the district are publicly owned, we can't throw any away. Instead, they have to be put into surplus, and made available for public auction. We don't do this for the fun of it, we are legally required to somehow distribute the computers back to the public after we are done with them because they are publicly owned. We can't sell them to a private business. We can't chuck them in the garbage bin. We can't take them home with us. Even though the school district is done with this equipment. In rare cases we will even give some equipment away to students and staff to redistribute it publicly that way.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

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.

Pfftt, I work at a "Christian" university and I'm not Christian, but then, neither are the two Jewish guys who work in the language department. However, it's not an evangelical or fundamentalist school, so that has a lot to do with it.

The guy in the article just needs to move on and enjoy his career elsewhere, he'll be much happier.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Are you saying that Christian universities are essentially church sunday schools?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Pfftt, I work at a "Christian" university and I'm not Christian, but then, neither are the two Jewish guys who work in the language department.

This is more akin to the Jewish guys not believing in language.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

This is more akin to the Jewish guys not believing in language.

Actually, it would be akin to the Jewish guys not believing in language as the school chooses to teach it, but being willing to teach it that way anyways.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It subtracts the extent to which his observations can be generalized, similar to how general relativity and quantum mechanics subtract from the scales to which newtonian dynamics can be generalized.

I disagree. The fundamental dynamic is unaltered. Punctuated equilibrium is still natural selection; it's just a more specific modality.

I'd say it's a refinement, hardly comparable to the number Einstein pulls on Newtonian physics.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Pfftt, I work at a "Christian" university and I'm not Christian, but then, neither are the two Jewish guys who work in the language department. However, it's not an evangelical or fundamentalist school, so that has a lot to do with it.

The guy in the article just needs to move on and enjoy his career elsewhere, he'll be much happier.

Or, he could just join the rest of us in the 20th century and stop his pig-headed rejection of the most successful theory in the biological sciences.

Just a thought.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Actually, it would be akin to the Jewish guys not believing in language as the school chooses to teach it, but being willing to teach it that way anyways.

From what I can tell from the story, it doesn't sound like this guy was really willing to do his job when it conflicted with his beliefs.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Are you saying that Christian universities are essentially church sunday schools?

Many are. That's why I wouldn't work for Oral Roberts University, Trinity International, or Lee University.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

From what I can tell from the story, it doesn't sound like this guy was really willing to do his job when it conflicted with his beliefs.

"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."

He says he was willing to do so. What part wasn't he willing to do?

[Chuckit]

I was looking at:

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

It sounds to me like he was willing to help with the research, but only as long as that didn't require him to implicitly endorse evolution in his findings. Basically, he was willing to do anything they asked except the stuff they needed him to do.