Christian biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

[villager]

Source: Reuters

Christian biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

By Jason Szep

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

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.

<snip>


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071210/od_nm/evolution_lawsuit_dc

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. if his beliefs make his job impossible, they have every right to fire him.

from what school did he get his degree? Regent U?

[DrDan]

18. He got his Masters and Ph.D. from St. Johns in New York, but guess where he is currently employed .

Liberty University . . . falwell's own little domain . . .

[Grins]

62. You're right, but note one other item...

From Boston/com:

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

It doesn't say doctorate in biology; its says philosophy. Unless there's something I'm missing here.... why did Woods Hole hire this guy?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/07/biologist_fired_for_beliefs_suit_says/?page=2

[CottonBear]

2. How can a scientist not accept the theory of evolution?

I don't find Christinaity and science to be mutually exclusive.

I'm sure he believes in the germ theory and the theories of gravity and plate tectonics.

Or maybe, he believes in Intelligent Falling instead of gravity. :eyes:

[kestrel91316]

7. He's not a scientist. He's a "scientist".

He may have gone to school somewhere and bought himself a degree, and then got a job in biology, but he AIN'T no scientist. Leastways not in my book.

[IntravenousDemilo]

33. I think the best term for him is "scientician".

http://achangeinthewind.typepad.com/achangeinthewind/2005/10/scientician_of_.html

[D23MIURG23]

45. I like the word Charlatan better. n/t

[geomon666]

3. Why is he a scientist if he already knows all the answers to life's mysteries?

You're going to credit God no matter what you find, what's the point?

[villager]

5. one wonders if maybe he was a "plant" (so to speak?) for just this purpose...

To get fired -- since he can't do his job -- and thus trigger a lawsuit "legitimizing" far-right beliefs...

[trotsky]

15. That's exactly what I thought.

Wouldn't put it past the fundie nutjobs. They know how to game the system.

[lumpy]

63. " They know how to game the system".

No truer words were ever spoken. To infiltrate all organizations has been the fundie game plan for eons. Religious zealots are not exclusive to the Middle East.

[Turbineguy]

20. If he is a plant

he is doing his task and succeeding just by costing them money.

[SpiralHawk]

4. Science is about facts, not about beliefs

Flipping fundies can just keep their beliefs to themselves, the moral and civilized thing to do --

But when you show up in the lab, your beliefs and prejudices have no place -- just the facts...otherwise you are practicing religion, not science...

[Avalux]

6. lol - this man is NOT a biologist.

A 'biologist' who condemns evolution and embraces creatonism..... :rofl:

Mr. Abraham is entitled to BELIEVE whatever he wishes. However if he chooses to use creationism to explain the existence living organisms in the capacity of a biologist, then the burden is on him to PROVE evolution is not valid.

[Birthmark]

8. Another take on the story. (link included)

"And here's the scientist's side:

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."

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."

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/slackjawed_creationist_surpris.php

[villager]

12. Jesus Christ! (again, so to speak... ;-) It really does sound like a set-up...

n/t

[Maine-i-acs]

9. Can you be fired from a conservative Christian organization for BELIEVING in evolution?

Most likely ... and they'd get a pass for doing so.

[Maine-i-acs]

10. Can you be fired from a conservative Christian organization for BELIEVING in evolution?

Most likely ... and they'd get a pass for doing so.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

29. Heck, you can be fired from a GOVERNMENT job

for not believing in evolution.

It happened to the head of Texas' science curriculum department just a couple of weeks ago. She forwarded an e-mail announcing a scietific lecture or some such and was canned for disputing creationism.

Welcome to JesusLand!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. 1. He's probably just making it up.

2. Even if he isn't, good.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. "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."

Says it all, really, doesn't it?

On edit: PZ Myers, zebrafish developmental biologist and prominent atheist blogger, has an opinion, unsurprisingly:

Slackjawed creationist surprised at his own incompetence at a scientific job

I would have fired the guy, too. Hahn studies a particular protein family in multiple species, not just zebrafish; he publishes papers with titles like "Unexpected diversity of aryl hydrocarbon receptors in non-mammalian vertebrates: insights from comparative genomics." He does modern developmental biology, which is so tightly wrapped up in evolutionary theory they're becoming indistinguishable. How do you go off to do a post-doc in a lab without first reading up on the work, getting excited about it all, and planning to invest yourself in it? Abraham had to have read and understood the prior work of the lab, or he shouldn't have taken the job on. Announcing that he didn't like evolution is comparable to showing up in a fish lab and announcing that he didn't like to get his hands wet. It's like taking a job as a stockbroker and denouncing capitalism and refusing to make a profit. It's like wanting to work as a carpenter but declaring a deep-seated fear of hammers and saws.

If he thinks he can get a half-mil for wrongful termination on this, I'm going to march down to the local fundie church and demand a job as youth pastor, which I will prosecute by explaining the absurdity of god-belief to the little kids in Sunday School, and then I'll sue when they fire me. This isn't simply firing someone for incidental, private beliefs—it's firing him for practices that actually conflict with the stated purpose of the job.

Abraham is now working at Liberty University, where all creationist poseurs who claim to be scientists go to die.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/slackjawed_creationist_surpris.php

[CottonBear]

14. Yup. n/t

[villager]

19. boy, it sure does.

n/t

[LeftyMom]

16. What's next, a shrink getting fired for believing mental illness is caused by Xenu?

If you don't believe in the basic principles of biology, you're really not qualified to work as a biologist.

Fucking A, where do they get these people?

[dmallind]

17. I'm nobody's idea of Mr. Religio-sensitive 2007 but ..

...let's be sure to make the distinction here about what the problem is. I couldn't care less if even a research biologist is a creationist (although how he would wrap his head around the cognitive dissonance is beyond me) but if you take a position which would mean coauthoring or approving articles making evolution-based extrapolations from that research then refuse to do so THAT's the problem. We can't ask this guy to give up his religious beliefs just because of his job any more than we expect Jewish car salesman to be fired for refusing to take part in Christian prayer sessions to pick one recent example. We can and should however ask that he do his job without being constrained by those beliefs once he has taken them. Jews can sell cars. Creationist biologists can still write evolutionary relevant articles. The job abandonment is the problem, not the belief.

[whistle]

23. Well, such a person can't wrap their head around the contradictions

...and their mission then becomes like "Planet of the Apes". They move science back to the dark ages and this institution becomes something totally opposite to what it was intended. It is a deliberate agenda on the part of creationists to subvert reputable scientific institutions in this country.

[Ammonium]

30. exactly

The fact that he does not believe in evolution is just a side issue. The real issue is that the "scientist" took a job that required applicants to use their science background to conduct study and publish articles centered around evolutionary science. The applicant knew that in advance and decided to apply for the position. If, after his hiring, he decided that he objected to the core of the job requirements than of course he would be fired.

It's like I apply to a job that required me to hammer nails into wood all day long, was hired, and then it turned out I did not have the technical skills to hit the nails, how could I expect to keep my job?

This suit is silly and should be thrown out. This is not about religion versus science. This is about an applicant lying on their application and then being fired for lying.

[whistle]

21. The website for Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts

...seems pretty clear what their purpose and mission is which requires a dedicated commitment to research and scientific principles, so either someone hired this creationist out of total ignorance to his lack of qualifications or the man falsified his resume and claimed he was something that he wasn't.

[DRoseDARs]

22. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution receives federal funds, making this stickier than at first.

He may well have a solid basis for a discrimination suit, but that doesn't make him any less of a disingenuous moron for taking a job he knew FULL WELL would likely involve actual science instead of Biblical "science."

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. How in the hell...

did this boob land a job a Woods Hole in the first place?

[nxylas]

28. He probably faked belief in evolution

There was an article posted here on DU a while back about how creationists were infiltrating reputable scientific institutions by keeping quiet about their beliefs until they had got the job and then coming out of the closet so that the fundies can then say "Well, Dr Bob Jesuslover believes in creationism and he all's a perfesser at HARVARD!".

[moggie]

34. I'm not sure he'd need to fake it, as such

Evolution is so fundamental to modern biology that I doubt the question would come up at the hiring stage. It'd be like asking a candidate for an accountancy job whether they accept the existence of negative numbers: why would you even do that? The fakery comes from him taking on a job which he must have known he was incapable of doing satisfactorily.

I think he needs to choose a different career. Such as pharmacy, where he can refuse to dispense contraceptives.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

48. True

It would be like asking a candidate for an accounting position if he could do long division. One would assume that a marine biologist would accept evolution as a scientific fact.

[nxylas]

57. But surely cases like this prove that you can't assume that

I suspect that the creationist infiltrators are exploiting this assumption so that they don't have to flat-out lie (which might trouble even their consciences, though they'd probably assuage them with some "ends justify the means" argument).

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

59. They're lying for Jesus, so it's all right

It's how they justified the Crusades.

[nxylas]

61. Actually it isn't

But since this isn't the place for a history lecture, I'll let it slide.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

64. Thanks for your magnanimity

It was a joke.

[nxylas]

65. Sorry, I'm a bit of a history nerd

I tend to get pedantic about things like that.

[demo dutch]

67. Sounds to me like a planned set-up!

[happyslug]

71. When the ADA act was passed, it did little to help disabled being hired...

But had a HUGE effect on the handicap who was employed (i.e. most discrimination cases involved people who had LOST their job, not people who were denied a job).

From what I have read, the same things happened to when it came to religious discrimination, it had more affect to people who were FIRED for that religious belief than it had on people who were DENIED being hired for their Religious beliefs (Which includes Atheism and any other strongly held belief systems).

One of the defenses employers had under the ADA (and this came out of the Sex discrimination cases) was can the person do the job? If the answer is NO, then discrimination is permitted. The classic situation is a person who has epilepsy applying for a Trucking job. Is is discrimination to deny the Epileptic the trucking job? Yes, but it is legal to do so if do to his Epilepsy he can NOT drive and thus can NOT do the job.

Now this "out" has been abused by employers. For example Walmart is known to require ALL of its employees to do Cart return and other heavy jobs, even if the primary job they were hired to do is sedentary to light. This way Walmart (and other retailers) can say they did NOT hire the Handicap because they can NOT do the job, a job made impossible to do by anyone with a handicap. This is an abuse of this exception to the ADA rule but so far upheld by various Equal Opportunity Commission that have addressed it. Disabled groups oppose it, but as long as it goes to "Hiring" as opposed to "retention" it has been upheld (remember if you do prevail, what you get is reduced by whatever you earned otherwise, given Walmart and others pay low wages, how much Walmart and other pay out even if they lose is quite small given WHO they are discriminating against).

On the other hand this employer paid this petitioner quite well, thus the 1/2 million lawsuit amount. Maybe it is my background do to seeing illegal discrimination by Walmart and other low income employers getting away with such discrimination makes me root for this Petitioner. If he prevails, on a Religious discrimination issue, it is warning to others that you can NOT discriminate do to PERSONNEL disagreement with another, if that is the REAL reason for the Discrimination.

As I said before, the employer defense MUST be the Employee could NOT do his job. If the employer said because he did NOT accept evolution as a FACT, prevented the employee from doing his job, they MUST show how that is true. If true, then the Employer fired him do to an inability to do his job. The employer clearly said that was the reason for termination which included the employee's refusal accept evolution as "Fact". That is all the petitioner has to show in a Discrimination Case. Once that is shown, the burden shifts to the employer to show they had other good reason for the termination. An inability to do the job is enough to defeat this lawsuit, but only IF THAT IS TRUE, but it will be up to a Jury to determine the facts in the case.

As to him having "Faked" his way into the job, that is only a Defense if he LIED on his application or otherwise lied to his employer to get the job. If he stayed with the Truth, merely being a "Test Subject" is unimportant. "Test Subjects" are used all the time in discrimination cases (Mostly housing involving Race discrimination), but such cases are NEVER dismissed do to the fact the prospective Tenants did NOT want the rental unit as long as they did what was required by the landlord to become Tenants.

The same rule here, even if the Employee/Petitioner was a "Test Subject" as long as he was qualified for the Job and did the job while employed, that fact he was a "test subject" is unimportant. The issue is discrimination INDEPENDENT of an ability to do the job. How he was hired is unimportant, as long as he followed the rules set by his employer. If he was fired for being a "Test Subject", how does that show his inability to do the Job? As long as he was doing the job and was terminated for his religious beliefs independent of being a "Test Subject", he can still prevail. You can terminate a "Test Subject" on the grounds that being a "Test Subject" means you are NOT looking at your employer's best interests and as such NOT a loyal employee (unionization is the big exception here). Thus "Test Subjects" can be fired, but that is NOT alleged in the Complaint NOR the Citation which gives the employer's side.

One last comment, you sure this is NOT a made up case? i.e. both sides agreed to the case before it was even filed? An employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason and provided it is NOT an illegal reason that is perfectly legal. Illegal discrimination includes Race, Sex Age, Familiar Status (I.e. do you have children), disability and Religious beliefs (These are the Federal protected Classes, some states and many Cities add "Sexual Orientation" but that is NOT in the Federal Law at the present time).

Given that an employee can fire someone for any reason or no reason, why give ANY REASON? Take the hit on Unemployment Insurance (Where the Employer has to show an employee was terminated for good cause) and leave it go. No statement as to why someone was fired, no evidence of discrimination. Why tell him he was being fired do to his refusal to accept Evolution as "Fact". Just look at his results, and fire him for failing to work up to your specifications, DO NOT mention his "belief" in evolution AT ALL.

Thus this comment on accepting Evolution as "fact" is weird, unless this is a made up case. i.e. BOTH SIDES WANTED THIS TO GO TO FEDERAL COURT. The Classic case is the Scopes Monkey trial, both sides wanted it in court (This fact was ignored in the movie and play do to the authors o the play wanted to make Scoops a "victim" not part of a vast conspiracy to bring money into the town. In the actual Scoops Trial, but not the movie or play, before the trial ever began the Prosecutor asked Scoops if he could pay the fine, and if he could not the Prosecutor would pay it for Scoops. Scoops told him the town had already agreed to pay the fine and thanked the Prosecutor for his offer. If you are wondering about the Prosecution request for jail time in Scoops, that is part of the Mover and Play but not the Actual trial, for the law violated ONLY included a fine so the Prosecutors could NOT ask for Jail time, the scene was taken from McCarthy last news Conference about Communists NOT the Scoops monkey trial).

Anyway, like Scoops, this case smacks of being made up. That does NOT mean both sides worked together (That did NOT even happen in Scoops) but that both sides wanted a case to go to court on an issue both sides wants to address. In a good Case, like Scoops, both sides are independent of each other and will work together but have opposites points of view. In bad cases, both sides are controlled by one side who wants a decision in its favor (The 1927 case permitting sterilization of "Incompetents" is such a Case, the Government of the state involved wanted to "Sterilized" incompetents, so they arranged a case to work its way up to the Supreme Court to get the ruling they wanted. This often required funding both sides who technically independent of each other, but in that case this was questionable given both sides were from the same area of the South and had worked together for years).

Thus it will be interesting how this case works out, I have my suspicions, that the real purpose is to get the Religious Right vote out in 2008 more than anything else. I suspect the Right Wing did the same with the Massachusetts court Decision to REQUIRE Massachusetts to permit Homosexuals to marry (i.e. less about giving Rights to Homosexuals, and more to getting the Religious Right vote out). If that is the case, this is a made up case with BOTH SIDES working together (In this case to get the Religious right vote out in 2008).

[kestrel91316]

72. It wasn't that he COULDN'T do the job. It was that he WOULDN'T.

There is a job requirement here to THINK in a certain way, to use certain basic biological principles, among them evolution, to guide one's thought processes. If he refuses to use these principles to guide his thought processes and actions, and chooses to use a belief system centered on unquestioning faith in and adherence to sacred texts and worship of invisible deities, then he's essentially SABOTAGING the work altogether.

IMHO he intended to sabotage the work.

[happyslug]

75. That is NOT what he is saying, but seems to be the Defense.

Thus this is an issue of facts. what was his ability and what was he REQUIRED to do? That is a factual decision and thus up to a jury. The Petitioner claims he could do the job, but was fired for his beliefs. The Defense says he he could NOT do the job for his beliefs interfered with how he did his job. It is up to a jury to decide which is what really happened. Could he do the job? If no he could be fired, if yes, then why was he fired?

The more I review this case, the more convinced I am it is a made up case. Why would a supervisor requires someone to "Believe" in evolution? All you have to do is see that what he is producing IS not compatible with what you want. That is incompetency and you just fire him (Through you have to pay him un-employment, incompetence is NOT "Willful" misconduct as that term is used in Unemployment law).

I suspect Management wanted this case. It is to "Clean" to be an actual work dispute. No dispute as to what was said? No dispute as to his education? Management take classes on how MOT to fire people, and those classes go over the Civil Rights Laws quite well as well as unemployment law. There are certain things Management can do and certain things management can NOT do, management follows those guidelines and that makes most discrimination cases very messy. For example no management will Fire someone AFTER saying his BELIEF system is incompatible with the job. That is cleanly illegal for you ned EVIDENCE that the belief system prevents someone from doing the job, not just a statement of belief. The safer method is to fire him for bad production of data or bad writeup. Either way you have evidence of an incapability to perform the job, which is NOT protected under the Civil Rights Laws (But can give him six months unemployment).

My point is something is wrong here, more than just a dispute over evolution. What it is I do not know. It could be as simple as wanting to deny the Petitioner unemployment Compensation (Which can only be done if the employee committed willful misconduct, NOT incompetency). My main suspicion is a desire to test the Religious freedom section of the Civil Rights act. Given that the Petitioner is now at Liberty University, I suspect this is a Right wing plan not a left wing plan. A right wing Plan to some how either bring out the vote in 2008 OR some other reason, for example cut out Federal Money to Evolution based research. I do NOT know, but something is up.

On the other hand he may have had a supervisor who disliked Fundamentalists and fired him for being one (And that is Illegal). He may have been incompetent and fired for that. That will have to be decided by a jury. That is the crux of this matter

[kestrel91316]

77. I am inclined to side with the employer here. It's akin to somebody coming

to work for me in my cat hospital, where among many other things, we perform the VERY occasional declaw (1 or 2 a year these days). If you were some sort of animal rights activist and didn't "believe in declawing cats", ie refused to have anything to do with them, that would be a major disqualifier. It's something we do, and staff MUST be both willing and able to perform their job as directed. If you knew right up front that I did declaws, and you were not going to assist me in doing them, and withheld that fact from me until I was in the middle of said declaw, then guess who is at fault? NOT ME. And I would be correct in firing you for simple unwillingness to perform all of one's assigned and expected tasks. And I'd consider it sabotage.

Just my particular take on the case.

And NO, I am not interested in anyone chiming in here to attack me for the rare declaw that comes my way. Anything to that effect WILL be alerted on (NOT directed at you, happyslug).

[valerief]

25. And in a perfectly ironic gesture, I'll add, "Great. There is a god." nt

[Robb]

58. LOL!

Paging DUzy committee...! :rofl:

[joeybee12]

26. So if an accountant is fired because he doesn't believe in the number 7...

...can he sue also?

BTW, I'm trying to point out how baseless this suit is...you have to at least be knowledgeable in your field of expertise, or you certainly can be fired for gross incompetence.

[formercia]

27. An accountant that did his books in base 12

would probably be fired as well, even though it is a valid mathematical reasoning.

[TrogL]

43. There is no number larger than two

That's the realm of linear algebra.

[rurallib]

31. The way things are going I expect to see a Jewish pope soon.

Seems like you don't need to agree with the basic tenets of your job any more. Like W and the gov't. Or this guy and biology.

[RainDog]

32. oh come on

would a hospital hire someone who doesn't believe in going to doctors for work that related to doctor's services?

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 problem is that "creationists" do not respect the concept known as "reality" and thus find their rights are violated if they refuse to accept reality because, in reality, who would expect a prestigious research institute to employ someone who denies their reason for existence???

Woods Hole cannot afford to have this person as an employee because he represents a risk to their insitutional reputation and to every other persons' work there and thus endangers their funding and the professional reputation of every other scientist. He brings his own beliefs into the workplace in a way that makes it impossible to evaluate the worth of his work without accounting for outside influences that may undermine the quality of his research. this is pretty simple to me. A professor who taught that Queen Elizabeth wrote the KJV of the Bible would face the same issue. The creationists have created this problem for themselves because of their stunts intended to undermine all aspects of American life, like the Grand Canyon crap that is the pile of dog shit Bush has left for this nation's children.

This is the same issue with fundie pharmacists who refuse to dispense medication that doctors have ordered. they should not be allowed to work as pharmacists if they are unwilling to do their jobs and not discriminate based upon gender.

I really hate fundies. They embarrass this country and impede human progress and have ALWAYS aligned with the racist, regressive, anti-female, anti-gay, anti-environmental side of anything since Falwell, etc. decided to create a little hell on earth for americans who just want a rational govt. As I've said over and over, I grew up surrounded by fundies in the south and I would encourage anyone I know to move away from the south just because of them. It was the best thing I ever did.

[MissB]

35. Bet his former coworkers threw one helluva party when he left.

[HuffleClaw]

36. a direct and planned assault on reason

isn't 'christian biologist' an oxymoron?

[Irishonly]

42. No

Not for mainstream Christians. I believe in evolution and do not believe that science isn't compatible with religion but then I am not a fundie and don't interpret the Bible literally.

[eFriendly]

37. Just another frivolous lawsuit to clog the courts. n/t

[DetlefK]

38. I'm always confused...

when these so-called scientists refuse to accept the scientific method. It was carefully derived to create abstract theories out of (potentially flawed!) observations. And the most important attribute of the scientific method is, that it's unbiased, by doubting everything.

It's little known, that most scientific theories are connected to each other. They depend on each other and sometimes they can be derived from each other. It has yet to be proven, that "intelligent design" or "creationism" are at least as competent as "evolution", when it comes to explaining phenomena. And the further problem is: Doubting evolution doesn't just mean doubting evolution in biology. It also means doubting evolution of artificial life-forms like neuronal networks (a self-adapting computer-architecture). And you can spread that doubt to many other disciplines...



I heard, there were approximately ten different philosophical approaches to proving the existence or non-existence of god. And all these arguments were proven to be flawed in a fundamental way. So, that means to me: God can neither be proven nor dis-proven. That means, he is not part of science.

[JoePhilly]

39. This is the same kind of discrimination that got me fired from being a Baptist minister.

I heard they has an opening ... and I'm not real busy on Sunday, so I applied ... I'm a good public speaker, and so I memorized some sermons that I found on the internet (its important to do research before an interview).

Anyway, I got the job .... and I liked getting up and telling all these people what I thought, and why they should follow my advice, and do what I said, and give me money. It was cool.

But then they wanted me to do all this preaching about GOD. And then they got all upset because I wasn't talking about the lake of fire enough, and they started asking me to talk about how Jesus was going to come back and kick liberal butt. What a pain!

So I tried to calmly explain that I didn't really believe any of their religious theories -- and that's all they are theories, right?

But that just made them really mad. So they fired me for my beliefs. Discrimination hurts.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

52. Ha!

Yup, that's pretty much it!

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

54. SNAP! Two thumbs up for your post.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[onenote]

40. copy of complaint here

http://www.courthousenews.com/2007/12/06/WoodsHoleXtian.pdf

[happyslug]

50. If he can prove what he states in the Complaint, he can win.

He states that what was demanded of him was acceptance of Evolution as a "Scientific Fact" and all he was willing to do is accept it as a "Theory". I do not believe you can PROVE evolution as a "fact". This goes back to the rules of Logic, which makes it hard to prove ANY theory as "Fact".

Now the first rule of Logic is if you have D, you have A, B and C. but the reverse is NOT true, having A, B and C does not mean you have D. Thus while the theory of evolution can explain most (if not all) of the fossil record, the existence of the Fossils do NOT prove the Theory of Evolution. For this reason the Evolution has always been called a Theory, for it can NOT be proved to the extent demanded by the Rules of Logic. It is the best explanation of the fossil record, but that does NOT make it "Fact".

Once you understand and accept that reasoning you can see why Evolution is called a Scientific Theory not a Scientific law. Evolution can NOT be proven to have occurred UNDER THE RULES OF LOGIC (Please note most criminal trials do NOT require the rules of logic be followed, absolute proof is NOT needed, just enough proof to show that guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).

If he was fired for refusing to accept the Theory of Evolution as FACT, then his right to Religious freedom under the Civil Rights act was affected. The issue becomes NOT hi religious beliefs, but did they prevent him from doing his job? In this case he is saying NO, he can apply Evolution as a "Theory", but not as "fact". If his employer says that it was his refusal to accept Evolution as Fact was the reason for his termination, the employer has to show WHY his refusal to accept evolution as Fact would prevent him from doing his job. The Plaintiff said it would NOT, for he could apply evolution as Theory with out any problems.

The Defendants will have to show that he could NOT do the job because of his refusal to accept evolution as FACT. They better have evidence that the Plaintiff could NOT do his job for that reason, not their "belief" he could NOT do that job do to his refusal to accept Evolution as Fact.

This case will go to a jury, and the Defendants better be willing to show HOW the Plaintiff's beliefs prevented him from doing his job. If the Defendants can not, they are in big trouble.

This reminds me of the PGA case about 10 years ago. A pro Golfer said he needed accommodations to do the PGA circuit, that accommodations was a golf cart do to his bad back. THe PGA said, no, walking between the holes was part of the game of Golf. No Carts are permitted for they are violation of the game. This went to a Jury and the Jury found that Golf was hitting a ball, how you traveled to the ball and to the next hole was NOT part of the game. The PGA had to permit him to travel in a Golf Cart.

The same here, if the Defendants believe someone working for them MUST believe in Evolution to do their job, and the Jury finds otherwise, the Defendants lose. Here the Plaintiff is saying there is NO need for him to believe in Evolution as long as he can apply the Theory to the research. If that is the case (and the jury finds that to be the case) the Defendants will lose. If the Defendants are able to convince the Jury that people to do the job HAVE to "believe" in the theory of Evolution to do the job right, then the Defendants will prevail (You have to be able to do the job).

I think the Plaintiff will win, the Plaintiff has to prove that the lack of Belief in Evolution prevents someone from doing this job, a job he had extensive education in and was willing to apply the theory of evolution. Applying the Theory and accepting the Theory as "Fact" are to different Concepts. I suspect the Defendants have boxed themselves in, they may have to prove the impossible, i.e. Evolution is "Fact". As explained above that is impossible under the rules of Logic. The Fossil record can NOT prove the Theory to the extent necessary under the Rules of Logic, and to show Evolution as "Fact" that is what the Defendants have to do IF the Defendants relied solely on Plaintiff's refusal to accept evolution as "Fact".

If the Defendants were smart, they said they terminated the Plaintiff for they did NOT think he could apply the Theory to the subject matter. That is easier to defend, but given that they FIRED the Plaintiff, the Defendant still have to show they had GOOD CAUSE to terminate him (i.e. he could NOT do his job do to his refusal to accept the theory of Evolution as "Fact").

If I was representing the Defendants I would Demand that they have evidence to support WHY the Defendant was fired. Hopefully it is more than "I do not think he can do the job". It has to be something Factual i.e. "his reports ignored evolution even where it was the best explanation". My problem given what is in the Complaint I do NOT think the Defendants have the Evidence, they fired him for they did NOT want to work with a Fundamentalist, and that is illegal.

Please note, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Commission against Discrimination upheld the Defendant's actions in this matter, but that is NOT uncommon, in race, sex, handicap and other discrimination. The 1964 Civil Rights Acts REQUIRES all potential Plaintiff to go through some sort of Equal Opportunity Board, that was done is this case and the Agency decided NOT to take on the case themselves. Then it is up to the Individual to file the Action.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

51. First off, no scientist worth his salt would say evolution is "fact"

At least a scientist would not say this in any formal setting. A scientist would say evolution is a model and is currently the model that best fits the data. OR A scientist would say that evolution is a theory that has been thoroughly tested and has not been disproved. Note: This is NOT because evolution is just a guess but because there are no facts in science. You cannot "prove" things in science, you can only fail to disprove things.

Second of all, did you even read the other side of this? He refused to work on the parts of the project that dealt with evolution when the whole damn project was centered around evolution. In other words, HE REFUSED TO DO THE JOB FOR WHICH HE WAS HIRED.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/slackjawed_creationist_surpris.php


If you are correct and the plaintiff wins, that will be the biggest bullshit win in the history of law. That means that I could apply for a job at McDonald's, politely ask (AFTER I am hired mind you)to not be assigned any work related to hamburgers or the sale of hamburgers because I don't believe people should eat meat, and sue for half a million dollars when I get fired.

[happyslug]

53. My comment was based on the Complaint, if true would prevail

The Article you cite gives the Defendant's position. This is an issue of fact up to a jury. I was just going by what was alleged in the Complaint. I thought I gave enough comments about how the Defendants can defend themselves and this is compatible with such a defense. The issue is could he do the job? Or was the job tied in with the theory of Evolution that he could not?

Equal Opportunity Commissions are notorious for being pro-employer, so unless the facts are so clear no one wants to go to court, Equal Opportunity Commissions always side with the employer. Thus I can give no weight to the fact the Commission sides with the employer.

The issue is NOT evolution, but did his dis-belief in the Theory of evolution lead to his dismissal WHILE HE COULD DO THE JOB? That is a Jury Question. Notice its TWO STEPS, first was he dismissed for his beliefs? If yes we go to #2, if no the case is over, Petitioner loses. The Second Step is could he do his job? According to your article the answer is NO, according to the Complaint the answer is yes. If the jury agrees with the Employer, the Employer wins even if they fired him for an illegal reason (His dis-belief in Evolution). If the Jury agrees with the Petitioner, he wins. For the Jury would have found that the Employer fires the Petitioner for his beliefs WHILE he could do the job.

Please note, the Civil Rights act was extended in the 1990s to include protection of people with strong religious beliefs. This protection comes under the traditional rules, which is did Discrimination takes place? Was they any VALID reasons to terminate the employee? If yes, NO Discrimination.

I am trying NOT to try the fact myself in this thread, but to look at the LEGAL ISSUES and WHAT IS NEEDED TO PROVE BY BOTH SIDES. The Petition MUST prove he was discriminated Against on grounds protected under the Civil Rights Acts. Once that is done, then it is up to the Defendant to show they had Good Cause to fire him for other legal reasons. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the Court.

[DemBones DemBones]

68. Do you seriously think a post titled

"Slack-jawed creationist surprised at his own incompetence at a scientific job" is unbiased?

Moreover, the subtitle of the blog is:

"Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal"

Just the sort of online jerking off (random biological ejaculations) that liberals need to lose more credibility with the majority of Americans who are not atheists. I think that ass. prof. needs to evolve some manners, develop beyond adolescence, and stop trying to piss off his parents.


As for the case, Dr. Abraham may well win. If he agreed to write up his results in accordance with evolutionary theory, as he says he did, then this seems like Dr. Hahn fired him because Dr. Abraham stated that he didn't believe evolution is a fact, which, as you noted, it's not. It's a well-supported theory but theory does not equal fact. It also seems that Dr. Hahn objected to Dr. Abraham's religious beliefs, and he can't do that when he's getting federal funding. A private employer that doesn't receive federal funds can discriminate on the basis of religion, but Woods Hole gets federal funding and Dr. Hahn got NIH funding for his research.

Dr. Abraham's doctoral dissertation was titled: "Role of programmed cell death in defining zebrafish development" so he is hardly a "Slack-jawed creationist." He was well-qualified for this post-doctoral appointment and had gotten good reviews for his work at Woods Hole until he made the mistake of telling Dr. Hahn that he believed in God and did not think evolution was a fact. He says that after that he was pressured to change his beliefs. Woods Hole may lose big on this; religious discrimination is illegal.

It should be noted that despite his name, Dr. Abraham is an Indian citizen so there may have been misunderstandings due to language or culture. Woods Hole's employees, notably Dr. Hahn, should have been sensitive to that. Firing a Christian just before Christmas was certainly insensitive and unnecessary, they could have waited two or three weeks. Dr. Abraham's wife was pregnant and nearly miscarried due to the stress he was facing on the job and his being fired. Not many juries or judges are going to be too sympathetic to Dr. Hahn or Woods Hole when they hear those things.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

74. I seriously doubt that any professor would require someone to say

that evolution is "fact" because not even THEY accept it as fact. Scientists don't accept anything as fact. However, they probably require him to accept the THEORY just as I would think physicists would be required to accept the theory of gravity. Once again, it comes down to an improper understanding of the scientific use of the word "theory". One assumes scientists are supposed to know what "theory" means in a scientific setting. He, apparently, did not. Being that it is an extremely well supported theory, it seems that this particular project dealt with discussing the results WITHIN THE CONFINES OF EVOLUTION.

Secondly, it was a blog reporting on the incident. The blog has no bearing on anything other than to provide a link to the actual article. Here it is: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/07/biologist_fired_for_beliefs_suit_says/?page=2

Thirdly, I doubt belief in god had anything to do with his firing. I know many professional biologists who are also theists. They, however, do not allow their religious views, whatever they may be, to conflict with their jobs. It was his alleged refusal to work within the confines of the experiment that got him fired.

Finally, he applied for a job that he KNEW would require him to work within evolutionary theory. Why would he take this job if he did not want to work within those constraints?

[LeftishBrit]

41. And the next items of news

A geographer is suing the University of X, claiming that he was fired for his belief that the earth is flat.

A mathematician is suing the University of Y,
claiming he was fired for refusing to accept that 2 + 2 = 4.

[DuaneBidoux]

44. Imagine hiring an engineer to design a bridge and he says he doesn't accept "bridge theory."

[provis99]

46. The headline should read "Incompetent worker fired for being incompetent"

Thats all that needs to be said.

[boricua79]

47. how are you a Christian biologist?

What type of science are you undertaking? Trying to prove that the root of all the animals in this world lie in some pair that was on Noah's Ark?

Oh whatever...one less fundie in science. yeay!

[badgervan]

49. Scientist Fired for Not Believing in Evolution

.... Well, I would hope so.

[jmm]

55. This is almost as bad as

the pharmacists who think they have a right to deny women birth control. Let me try being a Jehovah's Witness party planner or a vegan cook at McDonald's.

[NoodleyAppendage]

56. Good. There should be economic consequences for Xtian stupidity.

I have no empathy for people who profess to be scientists but hold to completely unscientific tenets. Faith has no place in pure science. Begone idiot!

J

[Ilsa]

60. Watched Abrams on MSNBC last night, and he said the Civil Rights Div of

the Justice Dept loves cases like this. Instead of working to encure the rights of minorities are supported, they are using the division for "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. They have hired a bunch of extreme right-wing lawyers to pursue a completely new agenda in the division.

[demo dutch]

66. Why would this guy even take the job if it involves work is based on evolutionary theory???

Sounds to me like a planned set-up!

[readmoreoften]

69. O'Brienist Mathematician fired for not believing 2+2=4. /nt

[Arugula Latte]

70. Oh, another poor persecuted Christian. I weep, I tell you.

Next these scientists will be insisting their co-workers agree that the Earth is a sphere!

:eyes:

[Dudley_DUright]

73. PZ Myers at Pharyngula (also a zebrafish specialist) has much to say on this as you might expect

Announcing that he didn't like evolution is comparable to showing up in a fish lab and announcing that he didn't like to get his hands wet. It's like taking a job as a stockbroker and denouncing capitalism and refusing to make a profit. It's like wanting to work as a carpenter but declaring a deep-seated fear of hammers and saws.

If he thinks he can get a half-mil for wrongful termination on this, I'm going to march down to the local fundie church and demand a job as youth pastor, which I will prosecute by explaining the absurdity of god-belief to the little kids in Sunday School, and then I'll sue when they fire me. This isn't simply firing someone for incidental, private beliefs—it's firing him for practices that actually conflict with the stated purpose of the job.

Abraham is now working at Liberty University, where all creationist poseurs who claim to be scientists go to die.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/slackjawed_creationist_surpris.php

[GoddessOfGuinness]

76. He wasn't fired for his beliefs, he was fired for his stupidity.

[killbotfactory]

78. If you don't accept or believe fundamental scientific principles

don't try to get a job as a scientist.