




















Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says2. Comment #95824 by Mike O'Risal on December 9, 2007 at 9:38 am
3. Comment #95833 by Dax on December 9, 2007 at 9:59 am
"I was applying for tenure as an Astronomy Professor and they didn't hire me because I told them I do not believe in a heliocentric solar system. *cry* *cry*"4. Comment #95835 by The Architect on December 9, 2007 at 10:03 am
5. Comment #95836 by kraut on December 9, 2007 at 10:14 am
Evolution is not a matter of believe, but the underpinning of biology.6. Comment #95837 by Matt7895 on December 9, 2007 at 10:16 am
"he did not accept evolution as scientific fact."7. Comment #95840 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on December 9, 2007 at 10:29 am
"Plaintiff does not acknowledge evolution as an undisputed scientific fact, but rather as a scientific theory."8. Comment #95844 by Mike O'Risal on December 9, 2007 at 10:37 am
9. Comment #95846 by Jack Rawlinson on December 9, 2007 at 10:43 am
10. Comment #95850 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 10:50 am
I accept (from what I have read) that it's difficult to conceive of someone working as an evolutionary biologist and not believing in evolution (though I think that, to be fair, we should hear the other side of the story). What I wonder is whether a scientist (and there are doubters - not all of them Christian) who is not committed to the evolutionary paradigm as it stands (Darwinian natural selection) but who is not a young earth creationist would be in danger of losing their job in a scientific field on that basis. What about theistic evolutionists or ID proponents with credentials equivalent to those of Michael Behe? Dawkins has insisted that evolution implies atheism, but not all evolutionists agree. I feel that this case might be the beginning of a slippery slope.11. Comment #95853 by Shrunk on December 9, 2007 at 10:53 am
12. Comment #95854 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 10:58 am
What about theistic evolutionists or ID proponents with credentials equivalent to those of Michael Behe?
It sort of confirms the impression that faith and science are at war with each other.
13. Comment #95856 by quill on December 9, 2007 at 11:04 am
14. Comment #95858 by Bonzai on December 9, 2007 at 11:04 am
Well I am sure some Christian somewhere will say that Mother Theresa didn't believe in God for forty years but they didn't kick her out. :-)15. Comment #95859 by Mike O'Risal on December 9, 2007 at 11:07 am
16. Comment #95861 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 11:12 am
Quill, why do you equate "Darwinism" with "evolution". It seems to me that while there is evidence for evolution, it is turning out to be rather different from what Darwin envisaged.17. Comment #95869 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on December 9, 2007 at 11:33 am
"(though I think that, to be fair, we should hear the other side of the story)."18. Comment #95871 by Ultraviolet G on December 9, 2007 at 11:34 am
ADH: "It seems to me that while there is evidence for evolution, it is turning out to be rather different from what Darwin envisaged."19. Comment #95874 by Ultraviolet G on December 9, 2007 at 11:40 am
Oh, and this should be a non-story.20. Comment #95876 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 11:45 am
it is turning out to be rather different from what Darwin envisaged.
21. Comment #95877 by quill on December 9, 2007 at 11:49 am
Quill, why do you equate "Darwinism" with "evolution". It seems to me that while there is evidence for evolution, it is turning out to be rather different from what Darwin envisaged.Answer: Because Darwinian evolution is the type of evolution that is accepted by every single natural history museum and every single biological science journal and every single university biology department throughout the entire world, and has been for the past 150 years, despite your objections that things are turning out "rather different from what Darwin envisaged" and that all of those institutions are either composed of buffoons who don't know as much about their own fields of science as you do, or are taking part in a vast conspiracy against the truth.
22. Comment #95886 by mandrellian on December 9, 2007 at 12:14 pm
From the article: "...he now works at Liberty University..."23. Comment #95899 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 12:36 pm
24. Comment #95916 by Dr Benway on December 9, 2007 at 1:15 pm
25. Comment #95918 by Nick Good on December 9, 2007 at 1:23 pm
26. Comment #95920 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 1:26 pm
"Frankly it's a great disappointment. Well, perhaps you have deluded yourself in your obvious ignorance of the overwhelming certainty of the principle (if not the detail), that this is the case. That is the kindest characterisation I can find for your position."27. Comment #95923 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 1:30 pm
But positting a materialistic oriin for the universe and for life is clearly a metaphysical position.
In that sense it is a "faith": "matter-cum-energy" of the gaps.
28. Comment #95926 by occam's machete on December 9, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I'm a biochemist who came to the US to do my graduate research in a microbiology lab. When I discovered that two (2!!) of my fellow lab mates reject evolution, I was shocked! The principal investigator knows about this and she doesn't care (since it doesn't directly impact on the work we do). I'm very discouraged about the whole thing, I've tried to argue with them but they take it as a religious matter so it's outside the boundaries of polite conversation.29. Comment #95927 by Mike O'Risal on December 9, 2007 at 1:34 pm
But positting a materialistic oriin for the universe and for life is clearly a metaphysical position. I'm afraid I will continue to disappoint you if you thought my theism was beginning to waver.
30. Comment #95930 by communsensetoldme on December 9, 2007 at 1:40 pm
31. Comment #95933 by Shrunk on December 9, 2007 at 1:48 pm
But positting a materialistic origin for the universe and for life is also clearly unsubstatiated. In that sense it is a "faith": "matter-cum-energy" of the gaps
32. Comment #95936 by SilentMike on December 9, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I'd like to show my support for Nathaniel Abraham's brave position.33. Comment #95940 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 2:03 pm
34. Comment #95953 by Double Bass Atheist on December 9, 2007 at 2:28 pm
35. Comment #95990 by Ducklike on December 9, 2007 at 4:19 pm
He has a master's degree in biology and a philosophy doctorate, both from St. John's University in New York
36. Comment #96001 by occam's machete on December 9, 2007 at 4:50 pm
<<1) How did Abraham get a master's degree in biology if he doesn't believe in evolution?>>37. Comment #96002 by Frankus1122 on December 9, 2007 at 4:59 pm
I think "religion" is a huge misdirection. Everytime I hear that word from now on, I'm gonna say, "You don't mean 'religion.' You mean, truth claims without any corroborative evidence to back them up."
38. Comment #96009 by bluebird on December 9, 2007 at 5:30 pm
39. Comment #96021 by dragonfirematrix on December 9, 2007 at 6:51 pm
40. Comment #96026 by Double Bass Atheist on December 9, 2007 at 7:16 pm
41. Comment #96045 by Ben Jennings on December 9, 2007 at 9:10 pm
42. Comment #96052 by Mr. Grape on December 9, 2007 at 9:56 pm
If you were hired as a doctor and told your boss you didn't believe in trying to save people who were going into cardiac arrest, you would be fired. If I, or anybody here, were to tell the boss that you didn't believe in the companies "objectives" you would be fired. The only reason this gets a lawsuit and a headline is because religion gets special privileges.43. Comment #96070 by windweaver on December 9, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Seriously though, no one has a clue where the universe came from
44. Comment #96096 by robotaholic on December 10, 2007 at 1:44 am
45. Comment #96101 by Bonzai on December 10, 2007 at 1:57 am
robo46. Comment #96103 by Duff on December 10, 2007 at 2:06 am
I thinks it was really, really nice how several of you took some valuable time to respond to the comments of ADH. Your responses were cogent, reasoned, intelligent and most of all, scientific. But, I'm afraid, because ADH is a stupid, moronic, uneducated fuckwit, your efforts will go unrewarded.47. Comment #96110 by The Anti-Pope on December 10, 2007 at 2:36 am
48. Comment #96111 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 2:42 am
Actually Brian, physicists are reasonably sure that the universe emergered as a result of a spontaneous quantum fluctuation
49. Comment #96117 by Mike O'Risal on December 10, 2007 at 3:03 am
50. Comment #96121 by stephenray on December 10, 2007 at 3:08 am
Know what I find most offensive about this claim?
1. Comment #95816 by HeathenAngel on December 9, 2007 at 9:22 am
Other Comments by HeathenAngel