Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
In the case of creationist Nathaniel Abraham suing Woods Hole for discrimination, Pete Irons uncovered some very useful information. He looked up the job posting that Abraham responded to in getting his postdoc position and it says:
"Results WILL BE interpreted within the context of the evolutionary relationships among the genes and species under study."
You cannot interpret those results if you don't accept that there are evolutionary relationships between the species being studied. Abraham applied for the wrong job, plain and simple. There are lots of places who will fund research that starts from Biblical creationist assumptions if he wants them, but they sure aren't at Woods Hole.
Also interesting is this: when Abraham filed his case with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, where he lost, he was originally represented by an attorney from the ADF. At some point, that attorney withdrew and he was replaced by David Gibbs III from the Christian Law Association. That is a major step down.
The ADF is one of the two most credible Christian legal groups. They generally avoid taking a case unless they've got a legitimate chance of winning. I suspect the ADF attorney withdrew because it became clear that this was not a case of religious discrimination but a legitimate firing of an employee who had applied for a job he knew he could not do.
David Gibbs, on the other hand, is a first class lightweight even among the Christian legal community, a bottom feeder who specializes in making ridiculous legal arguments in cases a better lawyer would have rejected in the first place. This is the same guy representing the Okeechobee school district in their case to prevent a GSA club from forming at the school and he's making a breathtakingly stupid argument in his case. The judge has already granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the GSA in that case, but Gibbs doesn't appear to be bright enough to realize his argument is going to go down in flames.
Comments
One only has to read the motions filed by Mr. Gibbs in the Terri Schiavo case to know that he's a moron. Given his long record of incompetence, one might ask why the Florida bar hasn't disbarred him as a menace to his clients.
Posted by: SLC | December 13, 2007 9:34 AM
One has to wonder if Gibbs knows exactly how frivolous his arguments are, but does them anyway to exploit all those people out there, ignorant of the law, that want to launch a legal "crusade" like this - after all, if no real attorney will take the case, that is a huge, untapped market for Gibbs to make millions in legal fees... What a racket!
Posted by: Disgusted Beyond Belief | December 13, 2007 9:36 AM
I imagine that Gibbs takes a case and then prays that he will win. Doesn't need to do any lawyerin', God will take care of it.
Posted by: BC | December 13, 2007 10:12 AM
I don't even think they want to win sometimes. I think they'd rather produce a martyr, which is what so many of them asprire to be. And then they also get to rail about evil activist judges and such.
Posted by: Savagemutt | December 13, 2007 11:30 AM
Gibbs does't need to win or even try to win, all he has to is bill his sucker client and be paid. That actually should be one reason to de-bar hum.
Posted by: richCares | December 13, 2007 12:38 PM
For what it is worth, Abraham's complaint (which I can send you if you don't have it yet) does allege that "Plaintiff assured Defendants that he was willing to analyze aspects of his research using evolutionary concepts," presumably claiming he could act along the lines of Marcus Ross, who got his Ph.D. in geosciences at the University of Rhode Island based on a dissertation about mosasaurs, despite the fact that he is a YEC. Ross claims that he can work within the "paleontological paradigm" while believing in the "scriptural paradigm."
How true that is, of course, a different matter.
Posted by: John Pieret | December 13, 2007 12:43 PM
Ed:
This is an odd statement. Perhaps you should have put scare quotes around "research". If this guy was interested in doing any actual research, he certainly isn't going to find any at the creationist institutions.
John:
Abraham's actual quote was:
That "as a theory" qualifier is of course typically loaded creationist code. I'm sure the people at Woods Hole saw right through it. It seems he was refusing to do any work which actually used evolution, but was willing to "discuss" it "as a theory"--meaning treat it like it's merely guesswork.
Posted by: Wes | December 13, 2007 1:11 PM
As much as I hate to quibble with John Pieret whose legal acumen I admire, I think he erred in leaving out two key words in the excerpt he quotes from Abraham's complaint, which reads (in para. 20) that "Plaintiff assured Defendants that he was willing to analyze aspects using evolutionary concepts IF WARRANTED...." (my caps).
Those last two words, which John omitted, are weasel words, meaning (at least to me) that Abraham reserved to himself the right to decide, in reports and analysis of his research, if using evolutionary concepts was "warranted." But the use of evolutionary concepts in such reports and analysis (intended, of course, for ultimate publication) was part of the job description for which Abraham applied: "Results will be interpreted within the context of the evolutionary relationships among the genes and species under study."
Here's my analysis of the case, from the facts on the public record:
1) Abraham applied for a position that he knew, from the posted job description, required the analysis and reporting of research results from an evolutionary peerspective.
2) Abraham did not reveal (and in effect concealed) his disbelief in evolution until after he was hired.
3) Woods Hole was under no obligation to "accommodate [Abraham's] religious needs," as the complaint alleges (whatever those "needs" may have been), since any such "accommodation" would exempt Abraham from a necessary function of his job.
4) The "Christian" basis of Abraham's disbelief in evolution is irrelevant in this case; he was not dismissed because he was a "Bible-believing Christian," as the complaint alleges, but because he was unwilling to perform a necessary function of his job.
BTW, I might also note that Abraham's charge of religious discrimination was dismissed by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination for "lack of probable cause" after an investigation and appeal hearing, at which Abraham could produce any evidence to support his complaint. Federal courts almost always defer to such findings by state anti-discrimination bodies. So I don't see any chance that Abraham will ever prevail in this case.
Any thoughts from John (or others) would be welcome.
Posted by: peter irons | December 13, 2007 2:09 PM
Wow. Was the emphasis in the original?
Posted by: Coin | December 13, 2007 6:35 PM
Coin -- no, the "will be" words were not in caps in the original, but it's worth emphasizing them, to make the point that Abraham obviously read them before he applied for the job.
Posted by: peter irons | December 13, 2007 7:05 PM
Thanks, just checking.
Posted by: Coin | December 13, 2007 7:35 PM
Professor Irons:
I do agree that they are weasel words but I assume, as a first approximation at least, that when such things appear in legal documents they belong to the lawyer rather than the client. ;-)
I took them to mean something like "if demanded" or "if not involving something everyone agrees doesn't involve theory." My impression was that Abraham wasn't really expected to be much more than a lab technician or to be deep in "interpretation" of the results, but I may be wrong about that.
Anyway, if they attempt to hold to the line you suggest, the case will be over quickly. Clearly the employee does not get to tell the employer when a particular analysis is warranted.
Since I also assume that Abraham and his lawyer want to get some more publicity out of the case, I'm guessing that any mimimally competent lawyer would avoid that trap at the outset and try to get past an early motion to dismiss. Ed may be right about Gibbs and he might not be minimally competent. It is also possible that there are sufficient "smoking guns" in the evidence submitted to the Commission that they are "boxed in" on that point.
As to the Commission, I'm totally unfamiliar with how it works and what laws it was applying. However, it is highly significant for the ultimate outcome of the case that the Commission dismissed the case at a preliminary hearing for a failure to present probable cause to believe there was an unlawful act of discrimination had been committed. As the Professor knows, that is a very low standard of evidence, even below the "preponderance of the evidence" standard usually applied in civil cases.
As to "accommodation," there might be some things that have to be done for a scientist who disagreed on religious grounds with a theory some work was based on. One possibility would be that he could ask that his name not appear on the resulting paper. (The employer might then have the right to publish an explanation of why.) But this is pretty far from my field and I'll defer to the Professor as far as that goes.
Oh, and thanks for the kind words.
Posted by: John Pieret | December 13, 2007 8:01 PM
John,
You're wewlcome for my kind words about you, which were sincere. But I still have some quibbles.
It's true, as we both know, that lawyers draft complaints, and Abraham may not have said (in precisely those words)that he "was willing to analyze aspects [of his research findings] using evolutionary concepts if warranted." He did, of course, vereify and swear to the complaint's allegations, which his lawyers must have explained to him (they'd be in big trouble if they didn't).
But I disagree with your reading of "if warranted" to mean "if demanded" or "if not involving something everyone agrees doesn't involve theory." (the second part of this I simply don't understand; can you elucidate?) But the first part, IMO, is simply wrong. My reading is that Abraham is saying he would be willing to use evolutionary concepts in analyzing his research findings if HE thought it was necessary, not if his boss, Dr. Hahn, demanded that he do so. But lawyers are paid to split hairs over definitions.
I think you're also wrong in your impression that Abraham was little more than a "lab technician" or not "deep in 'interpretation' of the [research] results." I've looked closely at the Woods Hole website, and it's clear that post-docs in fact conduct most of the experimental work (after all, they already have PhDs in the field) and draft the papers (and share co-authorship) that are published from that research. They don't just do "lab tech" work; they are (or should be) authorities in their field. Anybody out there who's been a research post-doc is urged to add their comments about this.
Also, the Mass. Commission Against Discrimination's "preliminary hearing" included presentations by lawyers on both sides and was based on records introduced by the lawyers. I have some experience with MCAD from my law school days in Mass., and I've looked up its procedural regulations. So this was not just a cursory paper-scan by a clerk, but a finding by an experienced commission hearing officer. And I think it will influence any judge who hears this case.
I also don't think that Abraham's asking that his name not appear on any publication based on his research would be a reasonable "accommodation" of his religious views, since his professed disbelief in evolution would taint anything he wrote, even if he kept his name off the paper. In other words, how can any fellow scientist believe anything in a paper that requires using "evolutionary concepts" if the researcher rejects those concepts (keeping in mind also that Abraham is a "six-day" creationist who rejects evolution lock-stock-and-barrel).
John, you and I have probably lost most of our readers with this lawyerly jousting, but I did want to engage your points. Anybody else want to throw in their two cents, or should John and I just go off-line on this?
Posted by: peter irons | December 13, 2007 8:55 PM
Sorry folks, but there are two points I forgot to mention above.
First, Abraham's lawyer, David Gibbs, is demonstrably inept. In the Gay-Straight Alliance club case that Ed referred to in his post, Gibbs argued, in a motion to dismiss, that such groups were not "persons" with rights to sue under federal law. Not only was this argument in contradiction to long-established Supreme Court precedent (like cases involving the NAACP), but a real person, Yasmin Gonzalez, was one of the plaintiffs. Gibbs's argument was so absurd that the federal judge dismissed it "with prejudice." Only a legal moron (like Gibbs) would make such an absurd claim.
Second, I doubt that Gibbs, even with further discovery of records not presented to the MCAD hearing officer by the ADF lawyer, will find a "smoking gun" to support Abraham's case (like a memo from Dr. Hahn saying "I fired Abraham only because he's a Christian whacko, and I hate Christians"). Remotely possible, but highly unlikely.
Posted by: peter irons | December 13, 2007 9:21 PM
Well, proceeding from a lawyer's understanding of the work involved, which included toxicology, I'd guess that at least some of the work would include such non-evolutionary issues as discovering the biochemical action of the toxin, the organisms' chemical resistance (if any) to the toxin and similar issues of the immediate actions and effects of the toxins rather than evolutionary origin of those actions and effects.
As to the other possible interpretation of the "if warranted" phrase, if Abraham is, in fact, saying he would use evolutionary concepts in analyzing the research only if he thought it was necessary, the case is over before it begins. The mere imposition of such a condition would constitute an "undue burden" on the employer, I think. I didn't know about Gibbs' record but for any non-lawyers still interested, that bit about arguing that a club not being a "person" with a right to sue (even forgetting the natural person involved) is pretty hilarious in a "who let this guy loose on an unsuspecting public" sort of way.
That's why I mentioned Ross. He got his Ph.D. based on a thesis that did pretty much exactly that. It is a slippery little problem that may turn out to be less difficult in the practical application than it seems to me in the abstract. Would I necessarily have to believe that quantum mechanics describes "reality" in order to do the equations? Isn't a lot of science dependent on "models" the reality of which is less important than the approximate correctness of the numerical results? Is a philosophical commitment really necessary as long as the reasoning follows from the empirical evidence, especially where the reasoning and evidence are fully disclosed for others to check? The very purpose of the scientific method is to remove the prejudices and quirks that everybody carries. And if it isn't really "necessary" to believe in the theory, can the law ignore discrimination based solely on a conscientious disbelief in the theory? (Not that I'm saying this case even comes close to that situation.)
For the rest, I don't think we really disagree with the overall merits of the suit. Perhaps because a large part of my work of late involves the sort of motions to dismiss that will doubtless be made in this case, I tend to try to anticipate the best case the opponent can make. By all accounts, I'm probably overestimating this bunch.
Posted by: John Pieret | December 13, 2007 10:31 PM
Those last two words, which John omitted, are weasel words, meaning (at least to me) that Abraham reserved to himself the right to decide, in reports and analysis of his research, if using evolutionary concepts was "warranted."
I understood that to mean that Plaintiff would acknowledge evolution when warranted, but Plaintiff talks to Jesus and Jesus tells Plaintiff that Plaintiff doesn't come from monkeys. However Plaintiff assures Defendants they can come from monkeys if they want to, but Plaintiff is not a monkey. (IANAL.)
Posted by: reindeer386sx | December 13, 2007 10:32 PM
Regarding the expectations of a post-doc, Peter Irons is correct; a post-doc is a research position. It's a sort of stepping-stone (or holding pattern) between graduate student and full-time researcher (assistant professor or staff scientist). Post-docs are expected to perform original research, direct graduate students, and publish. They are definitely not lab technicians.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | December 14, 2007 7:11 AM
Thanks. Obviously I'm ignorant on that point.
I suppose my impression came from a comment by Abraham about "setting up the lab" (IIRC). There is also the fact that he was employed for seven months with his disbelief in evolution never coming up and, even when it did, it was only in a casual conversation. Either he wasn't doing theoretical work, he was keeping his religious beliefs compartmentalized from the scientific work (leading to my quandry above) or there was some other reason nobody noticed. It's possible it was too early in the project for theorizing, I suppose. But that's something that I'd be looking at if I was Abraham's lawyer.
Posted by: John Pieret | December 14, 2007 8:53 AM
Re John Pieret
In assesing the incompetence of Mr. David Gibbs, Mr. Pieret might want to review some of the proffers and arguments made by the former in his role as attorney for the Schindlers in the Terri Schiavo case. One must have some sympathy for judge Greer who had to read such drivel.
Posted by: SLC | December 14, 2007 9:03 AM
Post-docs are expected to perform original research...
The post-doc that I worked with definitely collaborated with the professor in performing orignal research, and the two of them wrote an published papers together, but it would have been something of a stretch to suggest that he, himself, on his own motion, was performing original research.
Agree with the rest of your comment, by the way.
Posted by: raj | December 14, 2007 9:19 AM
I would guess that this is possible for Mr Abraham with no problem at all. It says "within the context of the evolutionary relationships"; as he doesn't believe in evolution then there are no evolutionary relationships for him to consider.
Assuming that it actually means, "basing research taking evolution to be true", he shouldn't have a problem. He may have been capable of using evolution as a model even if he doesn't believe it to be true.
The parts about not wanting his name on certain papers is odd, but I see no reason why peter irons (earlier comment) thinks his religious views would taint any papers.
Either the research is done honestly and the data is factual or it isn't, this is checked by other researchers doing the same tests and doesn't depend much on the beliefs of the researcher.
The intrepretation of the results will be subject to the researchers worldview, but this is true whatever the researcher's views happen to be. I hardly think he was going to write 'so God did it'.
I guess that the case will be thrown out because he was fired not because of his religious beliefs but because he was telling his bosses what they had to do.
He wanted to claim their authority for some decisions as his own.
Not smart for any employee to make a power grab and annoy the boss.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | December 14, 2007 1:16 PM
I may have missed a comment so someone may have said this already: it really does seem to me, given the job description, that Abraham had to have taken the job expressly to get fired and bring up yet another bogus case of "persecution of Christians". I wonder if anyone put him up to it?
Posted by: Ed T | December 15, 2007 3:54 AM
John Pieret says:
Or maybe his supervisors may have simply assumed he was using evolutionary principles to guide his research all along, since that's what the job entailed. He was a post-doc, and so they're not going to hold his hand as if he were a undergrad summer intern or a new grad student. he would have been expected to originate and conduct his own research within the context of the project.
Posted by: Dave S. | December 15, 2007 6:35 AM
That seems like a reasonable possibility. We are all just [cough] theorizing in the absence of facts, of course, but that would explain the delay in matters coming to a head and be consistent with the state commission's dismissal of Abraham's discrimination complaint.
Now we'll just have to wait to see which hypothesis turns out to be confirmed by the facts. ;-)
Posted by: John Pieret | December 15, 2007 7:26 AM