Christian biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

By Jason Szep
Mon Dec 10, 11:25 AM ET
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. ...

I wonder if hospitals could fire voodoo medicine men for the same reason. Or does the law protect rank incompetence?

Well, this is a change.  First an atheist teacher is fired for refusing to teach Creationism (I think that was the senerio).  Now an Xian scientist is fired for not accepting Evolution.  OK, so does this mean Christians only work for Christian joints, while atheists work for non-religious companies?  I understand he had to go by the book here regardless what he believes and it would not have killed him, but at this rate everything will be segragated.  :?  Come to think of it, I’m not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

It is, of course, not justifiable to fire someone for beliefs per se. However, if those beliefs prevent one from performing the job one is hired to perform, that’s a different story. I don’t know any more details than in the link Doug provided, but I can see how performing creationist research, or refusing to perform work based on evolutionary approaches, could be incompatible with the duties of a scientist at a research institution. Similarly, if teaching creationist ideas is considered a legitimate part of running an education dept. (which, of course, I think it shouldn’t be), then refusing to do so might be grounds for firing someone. I think the cases are interestingly similar, but the details are important in terms of the ethical and legal issues, and I suspect the details justify the firing discussed in this thread, whereas I think they don’t in the TX case.

I think they are justifiable in this case, but the thing is, I get the feeling it’s becoming segregation of theists and non-theists.  Of course, I don’t think Creationism should be taught in public schools either.  Now, I know this is biased, but it is a shame some religious people cannot face that fact that Evolution is fact and the Bible is myth.  That would be a start to ending all of this crap.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to teach creationism or intelligent design, but not in public school.  That’s what churches have Sunday schools for.  I wonder how the fundamentalists would like it and what their response would be if we picketed their churches because they refused to teach evolution on an equal footing with creationism in their church schools?

Occam

Occam - 10 December 2007 07:38 PM

I think it is perfectly acceptable to teach creationism or intelligent design, but not in public school.  That’s what churches have Sunday schools for.  I wonder how the fundamentalists would like it and what their response would be if we picketed their churches because they refused to teach evolution on an equal footing with creationism in their church schools?

Occam

Christopher Hitchens made the a similar point on that subject.  I love it every time I hear it.  This idea really should make it into the public debate.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to teach Creationism/ID in public schools, as long as it is taught in a Comparative Mythologies class.

I find it interesting that the plaintiff in the Woods Hole lawsuit is now teaching at Liberty University. He’ll have a very difficult time finding any research position with that on his resume.

fotobits, you know the religious won’t go for that.  They don’t see their religious texts as myth, even though they are.  So, they would fight tooth and nail to get it out of the mythology classification.

It seems, to me, quite legitimate that a so-called “scientist” who refuses to accept science be fired from a scientific position.  It is, mind you, perfectly legal for religious institutions to hire and fire persons based on their being religious.  That is not to equate science with religion in the least.  It is also par for the course that historians be expected to know about history, artists to know about their art, plumbers to know about plumbing, etc.  There are christians who are scientists and who accept evolution.  Why?  Because accepting evolution means legitimately understanding key aspect of science.

We are not talking about someone being fired for being a christian.  To even suggest, as Nathaniel Abraham has done, that christians are being excluded from public life in “christian America” as such is beyond ludicrous.  This is the same sort of twist of “intolerance” that muslims have concocted, in the west, as excuses to beat their wives and cut up their daughter’s genitals.  It is dogma, plain and simple, and a demand for special treatment at the expense of truth and justice and real science in this case.  Abraham is not responding to intolerance.  He is demonstrating a christian intolerance for truth.

I guess that Chick tract BIG DADDY? did its job well!