I'm looking for opinions on this matter of the "biologist" getting fired for not being a scientist. Thoughts?

Question

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


To me, this is like a Church Pastor finding out his deacons are satanists. They are legally free to have that religion, but it doesn't at all fit the needs of the job.

Likewise, someone who expects to work in the field of the biological sciences who does not understand (because he has a vested religious interest in not understanding) evolutionary theory cannot possibly fit the job. Belief need not apply. It would be like hiring a pilot who agrees to handle the controls of the airplane because he can pass a simulator test, but doesn't accept that the airplane really exists.

I would like to see what people think about this.

Does anyone think he took the job in order to dare people to say something to him, a kind of "in your face" statement?

Adding to Tricia R... It really makes me wonder how Liberty University got accredited to TEACH Biology, in the first place.

Any thinking person who understands evolutionary theory who is not muddled with cult superstition should accept it. To do less is intellectual dishonesty, and I would not want someone like that working for me.

Answer 1

Looking into the details I see that there was a requirement by a superior to do work to a certain specification. The employee requested to be exempted from such specifications. The employer was not willing to accommodate the one employee out of thousands -so what?- this kind of thing happens all the time.

It would be no different if someone wanted to work in a fast food restaurant - but they felt that it was wrong to make hamburgers out of animal flesh... so they told the Employer they were not willing to work the grill. It's better to dump a problem employee if you have to hire someone else to do the job that this one doesn't want to do, as well as risk a loss of business (which is the source of their funding) from having such an employee.

Ultimately these folks had no choice. The firms that provide their funding are not going to put up with some new-hire prima-dona biologist telling them how they had to do things his way. Sounds like a case of someone thinking he was "God's Gift" and being shown the door... Christians have a proverb about this kind of attitude that says; "Pride goes before a fall and a haughty spirit before destruction..." Funny how this guy figured that part doesn't apply to him - but he claims to believe the rest.

Answer 2

ok. First. McChrystal became in reality fired - it relatively is he became given a Hobson's decision with the help of the POTUS to renounce or be fired. same one Truman gave MacArthur. And, with the help of the with the help of, he became replaced with the help of the politically extra effectual Petraus. yet it relatively is yet another tale. Phil Jones, on the different hand, wasn't approximately to be fired. that would desire to require an entire vote of the college Senate, havent' checked UEA school senate policies, yet wide-unfold demands some variety of large-majority to do. And is approximately as trouble-free and trouble-free as Impeaching a US President, if no longer harder. So interior the Jones case, his stepping down became in reality voluntary. Jones became then cleared of wrongdoing interior the so noted as climategate, and for this reason is obviously back at paintings, having been cleared of wrongdoing. The priestly sodomy assessment could be valid if what had occurred became that the panel got here across him accountable and so asked him to pass to, oh, Edinburgh. including occurred with the admitted baby-sodomizing Nobel Prize winning scientist, Daniel Gajdusek. RIP. So i think of your actual objection is which you disagree with the panel that cleared him of incorrect doing. to each and each this is very own ...

Answer 3

If you subscribe to an organization you should abide by their rules. If you want to be a pastor at a Catholic Church, you should keep doctrines in tune with Catholicism. If you attend a Lutheran college you should be a Lutheran. But in the world of academia, especially higher learning, some disagreement is good, and let students decide. For instance at my college I learned Greek from a Christian, but there was also a class on religion taught by an atheist.There was a balance. It is wrong to somehow make it criminal to disagree with evolution, because to my knowledge that abolishes free inquiry. It is the same as to say, "We believe in evolution and will never listen to anyone who disagrees". It is the same as to say, "We believe the earth is flat and will never listen to anyone who disagrees". Science changes and our learning advances. If someone has an unorthodox theory, regardless of how many people disagree at the time, it is not bad to listen to them, because maybe a hundred years from now their beliefs will become orthodox and accepted.

As to whether this biologist has any merit or truth in his beliefs, I don't know. I kind of see both sides. But it is impossible to say without fully knowing the details. My biology teacher was openly atheist, my chemistry teacher was openly a Christian. My English teacher was openly an atheist, my Greek teacher openly a Christian. Its wrong to say, "In order to teach science, you cannot be a Christian".

Answer 4

The article said it best:

"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 is like a doctor who didn't accept germ theory.

Answer 5

It is not like the pilot example, and there is no reason whatsoever to assume that he doesn't understand evolution. This is like a Democrat working for the Republican Party, or a vegetarian working at a butcher shop. If he were fired exclusively because of his personal beliefs, then this is discrimination, pure and simple.

By the way, it is not like a church pastor finding out that his deacons are satanists, either.

Answer 6

This is the stupidest thing. He was told up front the work would involve applying evolutionary theory. Once he had the job, THEN he decided to share that he didn't believe in evolution! Hey we all fudge a bit at job interviews, but sheesh!

Answer 7

A biologist that isn't a scientist? Sounds very strange to me. How does one get credentials in biology without the study of science? Makes no sense.

Answer 8

I'm pretty sure he refused to do the work asked of him for religious reasons specifically so he would be fired. Then he could cry persecution.

I now plan on becoming a clergy member, then telling everyone I don't believe in God. So that I can cry persecution... ("You can't fire me for not believing in God, even though the job requires it! That's religious discrimination!")