51. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95859 by Mike O'Risal on December 9, 2007 at 11:07 am

Huh... the attorney representing Abraham was also the lead attorney on the infamous Terri Schiavo case (for the keep-the-braindead-woman-hooked-to-the-machine side, of course), and he was himself a graduate of Liberty University who maintains close ties with that bastion of crap.

Yes, there is definitely a rat to be smelt here.

52. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95844 by Mike O'Risal on December 9, 2007 at 10:37 am

I'm rather curious about the context of the "casual conversation" between Abraham and Hahn, He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy. A postdoc telling the PI on his grant that he doesn't believe in the entire basis of the lab's research doesn't sound like something all that casual to me. I have a hunch, though I have no evidence, that Abraham had already told others in the lab and/or been outright prostletyzing before the "casual conversation" took place.

If folks want a real gasp-and-a-laugh, though, check out the loons that are representing Abraham free of charge:

http://www.christianlaw.org/

They take cases AND do prayer requests, and they don't charge fees to people who sabotage research centers, apparently.

And does it strike anybody else as indicative of a set-up that Abraham stepped straight from WHOI to an associate professor position at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University? He never published a single paper, either. Why would Liberty University even know who Abraham was if they hadn't discussed some sort of reward once Abraham "came out" and thus set the stage for this lawsuit?

53. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95824 by Mike O'Risal on December 9, 2007 at 9:38 am

For more on this, including a link to a copy of the complaint filed in Federal Court, see:

http://vyoma108.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-on-nathaniel-abrahamwoods-hole.html

It'd be pretty funny to read the thing if this were only a parody. Not that it isn't close to one, but a prestigious research institution is losing money over this nonsense.

54. Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

Comment #88778 by Mike O'Risal on November 19, 2007 at 1:47 am

Why is it that someone who demands that they won't believe in something unless shown empirical evidence for existence can be labeled "militant," but someone who insists on the existence of something with no evidence at all not militant?

The label isn't particular appropriate for either condition, but it seems to me that someone who makes a forceful positive assertion that they cling to without any supporting evidence is engaging in at least the mindset that leads to militancy, whereas someone who demands proof is not.

55. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88163 by Mike O'Risal on November 15, 2007 at 2:31 am

@MuNky82:

I think that's better. Perhaps something even more official and, dare I say it, biblical-sounding could be useful.

The Evolutionary Codex?

Of course, a lot of people wouldn't know what that meant, either.

56. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88158 by Mike O'Risal on November 15, 2007 at 2:13 am

Evolutionary theory isn't a law... it's a number of laws clustered together into one coherent model. I think it would be more appropriate to make that already existent fact clear than it would be to start redefining language to suit colloquial usage. That is only going to lead to more problems.

For example, we can talk about laws of inheritance, laws of selection, laws of population growth. There are any number of mathematically quantifiable forces at work within the overall evolutionary model. When Creationists talk about "evolutionary theory not making predictions," for instance, the dodge is really that evolutionary theory *as a whole* isn't about making predictions; it's the application of specific principles embodied in the theory that are used to make predictions. Evolutionary theory as a monolithic concept is simply too broad to be applied in toto to some particular instance in biological science. That's not a shortcoming, anymore than the fact that we don't apply all of the laws embodied under "physics" to explain the Doppler shift.

We shouldn't call evolutionary theory a law because it *isn't* a law; it's many laws. In and of itself, evolutionary theory is like a higher taxon that comprises a number of more restrictive taxa, and it is these taxa — the order, family, genus and species — that are specific laws, in much the same way that Decapoda and Amphipoda are both Crustaceans.

If Creationists were to decide tomorrow that all crustaceans are shrimp, should we change taxonomy in order to shut them up for awhile... until they move on to their next set of demands?

57. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86716 by Mike O'Risal on November 10, 2007 at 2:45 am

Again?!?!?!

Perdue did this five months ago, in early June. It didn't work that time, either.

Gee, wonder why.

58. Lessons in hate found at leading mosques

Comment #83718 by Mike O'Risal on October 31, 2007 at 3:29 am

In other news, Jews are preventing Muslims from ruling the world by selling them drugs. No, really, Lebanese television says so. In fact, all that Jewish drug-dealing is why the Nazis had to exterminate a few million Jews. It all makes perfect sense now, doesn't it?

Religion is such a unifying force. Why, we'd have no morality without it and we certainly wouldn't be loving our neighbors. Where would we be without the voices in some prophets' heads telling us who to kill next?

59. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71563 by Mike O'Risal on September 19, 2007 at 3:35 am

Not a program I normally watch, but wow... they all seemed to include some supernatural element, and none of them seemed to have a very good handle on evolutionary theory. Witness Whoopi Goldberg including the shape of the planet as part of her image of evolution. Huh?

Cheri apparently hasn't spent much time at a library, though she'll apparently go if her son asks about whether the earth is flat. Perhaps she might have tried getting an education before taking it upon herself to reproduce. Why is it that people need a license to drive in the US but not one to have offspring?

My country seems to be getting stupider by the day. We first elected Dubya 8 years ago, then again four years ago. This is ample evidence of the decline of America. I believe we're due for a new Bronze Age here any day now.