Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

[columbusdude82]

Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says
Woods Hole states creationist stance at odds with work

Globe Staff / December 7, 2007,

The battle between science and creationism has reached the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, where a former researcher is claiming he was fired because he doesn't believe in evolution.
more stories like this

Nathaniel Abraham filed a lawsuit earlier this week in US District Court in Boston saying that the Cape Cod research center dismissed him in 2004 because of his Christian belief that the Bible presents a true account of human creation.

Abraham, who is seeking $500,000 in compensation for a violation of his civil rights, says in the suit that he lost his job as a postdoctoral researcher in a biology lab shortly after he told his superior that he did not accept evolution as scientific fact.

"Woods Hole believes they have the right to insist on a belief in evolution," said David C. Gibbs III, one of Abraham's two attorneys and general counsel of the Christian Law Association in Seminole, Fla.

Evolution is a fundamental tenet of biology that species emerge because of genetic changes to organisms that, over time, favor their survival. Creationists reject the notion that humans evolved from apes and that life on Earth began billions of years ago, but Gibbs said Abraham "truly believes there was no conflict between religion and his job."

Woods Hole officials released a statement saying, "The Institution firmly believes that its actions and those of its employees concerning Dr. Abraham were entirely lawful," and that the center does not discriminate on the basis of religion.

In a 2004 letter to Abraham, his boss, Woods Hole senior scien tist Mark E. Hahn, wrote that Abraham said he did not want to work on "evolutionary aspects" of the National Institutes of Health grant for which he was hired, even though the project clearly required scientists to use the principles of evolution in their analyses and writing.

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of cases pitting creationists against scientists in academic settings. Last year, a University of Rhode Island student was awarded a doctorate in geosciences despite opposition after it became known that he was a creationist. Earlier this year, an Iowa State University astronomer claimed he was denied tenure because he did not believe in evolution.

Like these cases, the Abraham lawsuit pointedly raises the question: Can people work in a scientific field if they don't believe in its basic tenets?

"I have a cleaning woman who is a Seventh-day Adventist and neither of us feel any tension," said Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at Florida State University who has written extensively on creationism and evolutionary biology. "Yet, what is a person doing in an evolutionary lab when they don't believe in evolution . . . and didn't tell anybody they didn't believe in evolution?"

Abraham did not return a telephone call seeking comment. An Indian citizen, he now works at Liberty University, a Christian university in Lynchburg, Va., founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell.
more stories like this

He has a master's degree in biology and a philosophy doctorate, both from St. John's University in New York, a university spokeswoman said. He was hired by Hahn's marine biology lab in March 2004 because of his expertise working with zebra fish and in toxicology and developmental biology, according to court documents. He did not tell anyone his creationist views before being hired. Hahn's lab, according to its website, studies how aquatic animals respond to chemical contaminants by examining ". . . mechanisms from a comparative/evolutionary perspective."

In October 2004, both agree, Abraham made a passing comment to Hahn saying he did not believe in evolution.

"My supervisor appeared angry and asked me what I meant," Abraham wrote in a 2005 complaint he filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. "My supervisor and I had a follow up meeting during which my supervisor informed me that if I do not believe in evolution, then he was paying me for only 7 to 10 percent of the work I was doing under the grant."

Abraham said he told Hahn he would do extra work to compensate and "was willing to discuss evolution as a theory."

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."

Abraham's last day at the lab was Dec. 14, 2004.

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.

But Gibbs said that Abraham, after disclosing his religious beliefs to Hahn, was subjected to a hostile work environment. "There was a systematic attempt for him to change his beliefs or resign," Gibbs said. "His life has been turned upside down by this."

Eugenie C. Scott, executive director for the National Center for Science Education, which defends the teaching of evolution in public schools, said Abraham was clearly being disingenuous when he applied for the job because he was hired to work in the field of developmental biology.

"It is inconceivable that someone working in developmental biology at a major research institution would not be expected to deal intimately with evolution," she said. "A flight school hiring instructors wouldn't ask whether they accepted that the earth was spherical; they would assume it. Similarly, Woods Hole would have assumed that someone hired to work in developmental biology would accept that evolution occurred. It's part and parcel of the science these days."

Todd Wallack of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Beth Daley can be reached at bdaley@globe.com.

[columbusdude82]

BOOOO-HOOOO-HOOOO... what a cry baby...

"I wanted to be an astronomer but they didn't hire me because I believe the sun is a giant fiery god."

[gcb]

Yes I'm a programmer and if I told anyone I didn't believe in structured programming but only in spaghetti code I don't think I'd have my job very long either.

[MCWAY]

BOOOO-HOOOO-HOOOO... what a cry baby...

"I wanted to be an astronomer but they didn't hire me because I believe the sun is a giant fiery god."

Ummm...this concept may seem strange to you. But, in order for Abraham to have been fired, he would have to be first……HIRED!!!

In the immortal words of Paul Harvey, ”And now, here’s the rest of the story!” (or more of it, anyway)

Excerpts from "The Abraham Affair", from Answers In Genesis:


Dr. Abraham, a postdoctoral researcher in fish development at Woods Hole in Massachusetts, was let go in 2004 when he told his supervisor that he did not accept evolution. He was met by the comment that his beliefs of biological origins were incompatible with his position, and that he should resign or be fired. Such an admission by Woods Hole made it open to a civil rights lawsuit over religious discrimination.

Specifically, Dr. Abraham was a zebra-fish researcher at the acclaimed Woods Hole institution. From India originally, Dr. Abraham came to America with the hope of gaining a top-notch education, but in his postdoctoral work, he ran into the evolution police. Within weeks he was shown the door, leaving him with the prospect of losing his visa and having to leave the U.S. and ending his research (through a grant from the National Institutes of Health). In the process leading to his termination, an electronic and hard-copy paper trail exists that includes memos that expressly state that he was let go because of his creationist beliefs (and thus that he supposedly could not perform his duties at the institute).

The Globe reporter was not very sympathetic towards Dr. Abraham’s situation. First, she misled her readers by writing that Dr. Abraham held a doctorate in philosophy, when it is actually a PhD in biology. (While the Ph in PhD stands for philosophy, the newspaper can’t be let off the hook for misidentifying the true nature of his scientific qualifications.) Furthermore, the reporter also gave plenty of space to the institute to defend itself, and then quoted Florida-based evolutionist Dr. Michael Ruse and vocal anti-creationist Dr. Eugenie Scott of California to seemingly buttress the institute’s right to fire Dr. Abraham.

The Globe reporter also mentioned that “a University of Rhode Island student was awarded a doctorate in geosciences despite opposition after it became known that he was a creationist.” This is a reference to Dr. Marcus Ross, now a Liberty University faculty member (as is Dr. Abraham). However, opposition to him receiving a doctorate did not come from his advisor or university department, which recognized the quality of his work. The opposition was from those outside of the university, such as Dr. Scott who suggested that creationists in graduate school “would not be worth my time.”

Dr. Abraham—who teaches biology at Liberty University in Virginia—told AiG that because religious discrimination was behind his firing, he has filed (through his attorney, David Gibbs III) a $500,000 civil rights lawsuit. He also hopes to establish a precedent in federal court that could help future qualified researchers from facing similar discrimination if they are found to reject evolutionary beliefs on the job in publicly funded institutions.

www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/12/10/abraham-affair

[Decker]

Ummm...this concept may seem strange to you. But, in order for Abraham to have been fired, he would have to be first……HIRED!!!

...

He was hired.

And now for the rest of the story:

The creationist, Nathaniel Abraham, briefly held a post-doctoral position under Mark Hahn at Woods Hole. Here's the creationist's side:

Nathaniel Abraham filed a lawsuit earlier this week in US District Court in Boston saying that the Cape Cod research center dismissed him in 2004 because of his Christian belief that the Bible presents a true account of human creation.

Abraham, who is seeking $500,000 in compensation for a violation of his civil rights, says in the suit that he lost his job as a postdoctoral researcher in a biology lab shortly after he told his superior that he did not accept evolution as scientific fact.

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 [the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination] 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

The project was grounded in evolutionary aspects of biology and a non-scientific creationist would simply not be up to the job.

[MCWAY]

Eugenie Scott has now stooped to suggesting that those who don’t bow before the shrine of Darwin and accept “Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo” (evolution) should not even be awarded PhDs, even if they have fully demonstrated their knowledge of the subject matter for which they are studying.

Furthermore, this statement of hers, "It is inconceivable that someone working in developmental biology at a major research institution would not be expected to deal intimately with evolution," she said. "A flight school hiring instructors wouldn't ask whether they accepted that the earth was spherical; they would assume it. Similarly, Woods Hole would have assumed that someone hired to work in developmental biology would accept that evolution occurred. It's part and parcel of the science these days.", is utterly ridiculous.

A flight school hiring instructors wouldn't care whether or not those instructions "accepted" a spherical earth. They would care about the students being taught adequately and demonstrating their ability to fly aircraft safely.

The Boston Globe article states that Abraham was hired for his “expertise working with zebra fish and in toxicology and developmental biology, according to court documents.”
 
So, Abraham’s expertise in this area is no more, simply because he believes in Creation? According to the article:

In October 2004, both agree, Abraham made a passing comment to Hahn saying he did not believe in evolution. And, it went downhill from there.

Thankfully, he is now employed at Liberty University, which had to get him a visa to keep him from being kicked out of the country (AiG's article suggested the possibility that Abraham's former employers were aware of the visa situation and pushed his getting fired, as it would have been difficult for Abraham to challenge WHOI, outside the USA).

This has also prompted a minor, at the moment, conspiracy theory, namely that creation-believing scientists are trying to "infiltrate" research laboratories, to put them out of business.

"It’s a strategy the creationists are using to bankrupt research laboratories. They attempt to get people to infiltrate and then use up all their funds.” - Brian Seitzman, Doctoral student at Clark University.

[Decker]

"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."

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

[MCWAY]

He was hired.

And now for the rest of the story:

The creationist, Nathaniel Abraham, briefly held a post-doctoral position under Mark Hahn at Woods Hole. Here's the creationist's side:

Nathaniel Abraham filed a lawsuit earlier this week in US District Court in Boston saying that the Cape Cod research center dismissed him in 2004 because of his Christian belief that the Bible presents a true account of human creation.

Abraham, who is seeking $500,000 in compensation for a violation of his civil rights, says in the suit that he lost his job as a postdoctoral researcher in a biology lab shortly after he told his superior that he did not accept evolution as scientific fact.

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 [the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination] 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

The project was grounded in evolutionary aspects of biology and a non-scientific creationist would simply not be up to the job.

Both sides involved scientists, Decker. Or did you forget that the plaintiff, Dr. Nathanial Abraham, has a Ph.D in biology. According to the Cape Cod Times, Abraham was hired for his “exceptional qualifications as a zebrafish developmental biologist and specific expertise in programmed cell death.”

"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."

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

This is almost as silly as Scott's claims earlier. Obviously, Abraham's creationist view had no impairment on his getting that Ph.D in biology. Nor did it hinder him from doing his previous work, described (prior to his hiring) as "exceptional". But, the above post from "scienceblogs" is typical of the mindset of many evolutionists, who think it's impossible or inconceivable for someone to have that kind of scientific knowledge WITHOUT wholesale devotion to evolution, especially if they believe in Creation.

Dr. Abraham is yet another on a growing list of people, who demonstrate that such a take is false and unfounded.

[columbusdude82]

I see our resident reason-resistant cry baby wasted no time in coming to this thread

McWay, Liberty University is to science what talking-snake-theorists (creationists) are to biologists, namely, a laughing stock!

[Decker]

Both sides involved scientists, Decker. Or did you forget that the plaintiff, Dr. Nathanial Abraham, has a Ph.D in biology. According to the Cape Cod Times, Abraham was hired for his “exceptional qualifications as a zebrafish developmental biologist and specific expertise in programmed cell death.”

This is almost as silly as Scott's claims earlier. Obviously, Abraham's creationist view had no impairment on his getting that Ph.D in biology. Nor did it hinder him from doing his previous work, described (prior to his hiring) as "exceptional". But, the above post from "scienceblogs" is typical of the mindset of many evolutionists, who think it's impossible or inconceivable for someone to have that kind of scientific knowledge WITHOUT wholesale devotion to evolution, especially if they believe in Creation.

Dr. Abraham is yet another on a growing list of people, who demonstrate that such a take is false and unfounded.

So he has a degree.  Great.  And the liberal media gave you only part of the story.  Once you read the entire explanation, you can see how the good doctor tried to mole his way into a reputable institution.  But that's how covert proselytizing works--tell half the story then unload the godly spiel on the unsuspecting target. 

According to the scientist writing the blog "modern developmental biology, ...is so tightly wrapped up in evolutionary theory they're becoming indistinguishable."

Seems like the good doctor knows this and is trying to make a big score in court on the basis of his firing as a wrongful discriminatory termination.  For shame.

Of course the scientist blogger explains it better than I do:

"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."

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

[MCWAY]

So he has a degree.  Great.  And the liberal media gave you only part of the story.  Once you read the entire explanation, you can see how the good doctor tried to mole his way into a reputable institution.  But that's how covert proselytizing works--tell half the story then unload the godly spiel on the unsuspecting target. 

According to the scientist writing the blog "modern developmental biology, ...is so tightly wrapped up in evolutionary theory they're becoming indistinguishable."

I see you're still resorting to discount and dismissing Abraham's credentials. Abraham is a scientist, with a Ph.D in biology, like it or not.

Seems like the good doctor knows this and is trying to make a big score in court on the basis of his firing as a wrongful discriminatory termination.  For shame.

If Abraham “knew what he was doing”, how then does an off-hand comment, regarding his not believing in evolution lead to his being fired? Certainly someone trying to, “mole his way into a reputable institution”,would not make such a careless blunder.

It looks to me as if that conspiracy theory that I mentioned (as suggested by that guy from Clark University) may not be as “minor” as I originally thought. Now, it’s a conspiracy by creationists to bring down “science”. 

Of course the scientist blogger explains it better than I do:

"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."

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

Whoever wrote that foolishness can knock himself out. Of course, if he's willing to go through seminary school, postgraduate school after that, and then take on all the responsibility and accountability that such a job takes, all for the sake of grandstanding, then go for it. Of course, he'd probably be driven nuts in the process. Or, maybe just maybe............

[Necrosis]

I see you're still resorting to discount and dismissing Abraham's credentials. Abraham is a scientist, with a Ph.D in biology, like it or not.

If Abraham “knew what he was doing”, how then does an off-hand comment, regarding his not believing in evolution lead to his being fired? Certainly someone trying to, “mole his way into a reputable institution”,would not make such a careless blunder.

It looks to me as if that conspiracy theory that I mentioned (as suggested by that guy from Clark University) may not be as “minor” as I originally thought. Now, it’s a conspiracy by creationists to bring down “science”. 

Whoever wrote that foolishness can knock himself out. Of course, if he's willing to go through seminary school, postgraduate school after that, and then take on all the responsibility and accountability that such a job takes, all for the sake of grandstanding, then go for it. Of course, he'd probably be driven nuts in the process. Or, maybe just maybe............

jesus, get it through your head, creationism is not science, has no theory that is based on anything tangible and the man was fired because his views contradicted the work required. if a cosmologist was hired to work on brane theory and then said he didnt beleive in it and thought god did it, he would be fired also. its fine to have personal views, but if it contradicts the work required of you then i dont see the problem. decker provided a few good examples, he should be working with creationists not evolutionists then.

[Decker]

I see you're still resorting to discount and dismissing Abraham's credentials. Abraham is a scientist, with a Ph.D in biology, like it or not.

If Abraham “knew what he was doing”, how then does an off-hand comment, regarding his not believing in evolution lead to his being fired? Certainly someone trying to, “mole his way into a reputable institution”,would not make such a careless blunder.

It looks to me as if that conspiracy theory that I mentioned (as suggested by that guy from Clark University) may not be as “minor” as I originally thought. Now, it’s a conspiracy by creationists to bring down “science”. 

Whoever wrote that foolishness can knock himself out. Of course, if he's willing to go through seminary school, postgraduate school after that, and then take on all the responsibility and accountability that such a job takes, all for the sake of grandstanding, then go for it. Of course, he'd probably be driven nuts in the process. Or, maybe just maybe............

I'm not discounting his degree.  That's a reason he got the job in the first place. 

You have admitted that creationism is not science--it is not quantifiable b/c you cannot quantify god or creation therefore it is not subject to scientific analysis.

That should be the end of the story but you are operating on religious belief so you continue.

Once again you give the wrong facts.  It wasn't his off-handed comment re evolution that got him fired.  Why that would make a wonderful case for religious persecution--a favorite of creationists (see how his mere belief cost him his livliehood?  Oh the injustice)

Here's what really happened:

The commission [the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination] 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.

See, he asked not to do work on the evolutionary aspects of the job.

That's why he was fired.

[MCWAY]

jesus, get it through your head, creationism is not science, has no theory that is based on anything tangible and the man was fired because his views contradicted the work required. if a cosmologist was hired to work on brane theory and then said he didnt beleive in it and thought god did it, he would be fired also. its fine to have personal views, but if it contradicts the work required of you then i dont see the problem. decker provided a few good examples, he should be working with creationists not evolutionists then.

His personal views had (and have) no bearing on his work. And, that's why he was fired, for his views.

Going back to an example I mentioned awhile back, regarding my sophomore year in high school, that would be like saying that the "A" I got in biology class that semester, should have been changed to an "F", because I didn't believe in the evolutionary stuff taught in that book, as opposed to the Creation-based biology book I used in class, when I went to a private school the previous semester.

Never mind the fact that I did the homework assigned and got good grades on it or passed the tests, given on the subject matter. Believers in Creation get automatic "Fs", or in the case with Abraham, they get fired.

I'm not discounting his degree.  That's a reason he got the job in the first place.  [/i]

You are dismissing and discounting them by referring to Abraham's former employer as a scientist, but not doing the same with Abraham hmself. They are BOTH scientists, with Ph.Ds in scientific fields.

You have admitted that creationism is not science--it is not quantifiable b/c you cannot quantify god or creation therefore it is not subject to scientific analysis.

And I made this admission where? What I’ve said on multiple occasions is that science is the observation of natural phenomena. And, while you can’t observe Creation directly (as it is a past supernatural event), you CAN observe the end products (there a reason that life forms on this planet are called CREATURES). You can observe that creatures reproduce after their own kind. You can observe rocks and fossils, and other things of that nature. And, it is observations of those things that lead creation scientists to believe that God created life on this planet.

That should be the end of the story but you are operating on religious belief so you continue.

Once again you give the wrong facts.  It wasn't his off-handed comment re evolution that got him fired.  Why that would make a wonderful case for religious persecution--a favorite of creationists (see how his mere belief cost him his livliehood?  Oh the injustice)

Here's what really happened:

The commission [the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination] 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.

See, he asked not to do work on the evolutionary aspects of the job.

That's why he was fired.

Hahn's ad stated that the job studies how aquatic animals respond to chemical contaminants by examining ". . . mechanisms from a comparative/evolutionary perspective."

Last time I checked, slashes meant "either/or", which would indicate that Abraham had the option of examining the mechanisms from a perspectvice other than an evolutionary one. Abraham wanted to use a different option but was denied.

I never said that his off-handed comment regarding evolution that got him fired. This was my statement on the matter:

"So, Abraham’s expertise in this area is no more, simply because he believes in Creation? According to the article:
In October 2004, both agree, Abraham made a passing comment to Hahn saying he did not believe in evolution. And, it went downhill from there."

Furthermore, Abraham, according to that same article, stated, "My supervisor appeared angry and asked me what I meant," Abraham wrote in a 2005 complaint he filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. "My supervisor and I had a follow up meeting during which my supervisor informed me that if I do not believe in evolution, then he was paying me for only 7 to 10 percent of the work I was doing under the grant."

Abraham said he told Hahn he would do extra work to compensate and "was willing to discuss evolution as a theory."

But, apparently, that wasn't enough.

According to the scientist writing the blog "modern developmental biology, ...is so tightly wrapped up in evolutionary theory they're becoming indistinguishable."

Well, there's at least one scientist that can distinguist the two: Dr. Nathaniel Abraham. And, if the job description states that he supposed to be studying how aquatic animals respond to chemical contaminants by examinimg mechanisms from a "comparative/evolutionary" perspective, Abraham should not have been fired for choosing the option on the left side of that slash.

[Decker]

MCWAY, Here's what you said in another related thread:

"As it is a supernatural event, I can't produce a verifiable explanation of the initial act, itself. At best, I can point indirectly to created being and the intricacies therein, to show evidence for a supernatural source of life."  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179725.100

It is supernatural...not subject to the Natural...not quantifiable...not subject to science.  For all the scientific pretensions creationism carries, we may as well discuss how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.  Creationism can never be subject to science b/c your main premise is God created--which is wholly unquantifiable--ever. 

Please don't try to use etymology as proof of your point.  That's weak--creature--creation.

So now you claim that the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is wrong b/c of your interpretation of a backslash?

That is an argument.

[OzmO]

I donno about all this fellas, but i do know this:


If i was running a operation that researched a certain field and a person on the staff didn't believe in that field, i wouldn't want him working for me.

It's like,you don't have pacifists researching new weapon systems.