…and this is a 
Another expulsion vindicated
Category: Creationism
Posted on: April 30, 2008 3:22 PM, by PZ Myers
Last December, I mentioned the case of a creationist named Nathaniel Abraham who was fired from his job at Woods Hole — he had the gall to apply for a post-doctoral position in an evolution and development lab, and the PI dismissed him for being incapable of supporting the full range of "evolutionary implications and interpretations" of the work he would have to do. Abraham sued him for a half million dollars in reply.
The judge's decision has been delivered.
A Massachusetts federal court judge last week (April 22) dismissed the case against a researcher at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who allegedly fired a postdoc in his lab because of the postdoc's creationist beliefs.
The postdoc, Nathaniel Abraham, was dismissed from his position in the lab of molecular toxicologist Mark Hahn in November, 2004, after revealing that he believed in the literal truth of the Bible and considered evolution to be not a fact but a theory. Hahn's lab studies the evolution of molecular mechanisms of chemical signaling and adaptation to chemical exposure.
Abraham filed a discrimination complaint against Hahn, which was rejected by the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination. He then filed suit against Mark Hahn and the institute last November, arguing, according to court documents, that he had been hired to work in Hahn's lab because of his expertise in zebrafish developmental biology, toxicology, and programmed cell death, and that "acceptance of evolution as scientific fact rather than theory (in contravention of his sincerely held religious beliefs) was in no way a bona fide occupational qualification of employment."
The defendants, however, argued that Abraham did not file the lawsuit within the timeframe specified by law. Furthermore, the court documents stated, research in Hahn's lab "would have involved application of evolutionary principles without qualifications concerning the acceptance of evolution."
Good work!
Comments
The linked blog post requires the reader to register. WTF??
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 30, 2008 3:25 PM
Good news, but the line "considered evolution to be not a fact but a theory" does nothing to help the mistaken belief that a theory is weak. Just my personal pet peeve.
Posted by: Eric | April 30, 2008 3:28 PM
Awww. And here I was hoping that I might be on the jury for this case. (Been called for jury duty next month . . . )
Posted by: Physicalist | April 30, 2008 3:29 PM
Don't worry if you don't feel like registering -- I included most of the article here.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 30, 2008 3:36 PM
You know what's also ironic? The same folks who have always railed against affirmative action on the basis that employees should not be forced to hire applicants who are not really qualified based on other quotas, are the same ones that would have no trouble overlooking the obvious lack of qualifications for these positions based on this "religious discrimination."
Posted by: Fire Ant | April 30, 2008 3:40 PM
I guess it was the will of God that Nathaniel lose his job and have his court case dismissed... that must be it...
Posted by: Ted Goas | April 30, 2008 3:42 PM
i woulda liked a more straightforward vindication myself, like "the job requires competence in the field of biology, and no one can be a competent biologist who still doesn't accept evolution."
instead, the case was dismissed primarily because of a technicality (statute of limitations), and the reference to "application of evolutionary principles...without acceptance of evolution" looks to me like a step in the *wrong* direction, if anything.
it looks like this would allow a plaintiff to say "you can't fire me for not *accepting* evolution, since all i have to do is to *apply the principles*, even if i don't accept them. so i can still be a mouth-breathing young earth creo dolt, as long as i toe the line in *applying* the principles."
i dunno. maybe that's good enough. maybe not.
i'm sure that it would not be good enough for wheaton college ("you can't fire me for believing that the gospel is a pile of transparent crap; all i have to do is to apply the principles, i don't actually have to accept this nonsense.")
maybe, though, on further thought, science doesn't really care about your inner convictions, provided that you apply the best practices and most up-to-date findings.
for a teaching job, i'd want someone who actually *believes* the truth, and doesn't just go through the motions. but maybe for a tech working on mt. palomar could be a committed flat-earther, provided that they did all of their work for the telescope in accordance with heliocentric principles?
dunno.
anyhow--i think the court should have smacked him harder.
Posted by: kid bitzer | April 30, 2008 3:45 PM
Wow - the creationist are out in force over there. It's an annoyingly long registration process, but it would probably help to have a few more "reality based" comments over there...
Posted by: IanR | April 30, 2008 3:46 PM
Last I heard, Nathanial Abraham was on the faculty of Liberty U..Square pegs in square holes.
And Guillermo Gonzalez is going to some Xian college in Philadelphia, IIRC Grove.. Presumably he will teach creation astronomy. The earth is flat, the center of the universe, the sun orbits the earth, and the stars are just lights stuck on a dome. A one lecture, 4 credit course.
Posted by: raven | April 30, 2008 3:47 PM
The same thing happened to me when I went into an interview at Microsoft and after the hired me, I told them computers were a hoax from "Big Government" to make everyone still think the moon landing was real.
Posted by: Dennis N | April 30, 2008 3:48 PM
Would they let an agnostic or atheist become a priest..?
Posted by: Sam Davies | April 30, 2008 3:48 PM
Well said, Kid Bitzer.
Posted by: Andrew Manderson | April 30, 2008 3:49 PM
On the other hand, there's an outside chance that actively working in the field might have finally beaten the evidence into his skull.
Aw, probably not. I mean, if he got all the way to PhD without "getting it"...
Posted by: mikespeir | April 30, 2008 3:50 PM
@#7 kid bitzer --
Yeah, this is something I really don't understand.
From the WHOI website:
(Emphasis mine.)
Why are private religious institutes (eg, Wheaton) allowed to fire/hire based on the religious views of their job applicants, but when a private secular institute declines to hire someone on the basis that the applicant believes mythologically based nonsense rather than real science (and thus is genuinely unqualified for the position), that person inevitably cries "religious intolerance"?
It smacks of hypocrisy.
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 30, 2008 3:51 PM
I don't get it. If you don't *believe* in evolution, why would you choose that job, or that area of study? There's so much else to do in this world. If I don't *believe* in gravity, I choose to not stick to the Earth. Wait, what was my point?
Posted by: Dennis N | April 30, 2008 3:53 PM
Well, when I win my lawsuit for being fired from my physics job, all because I disbelieve in that fantasy "momentum", things will look a lot different.
Someday we will be free to dissent from science and still keep our jobs. Until then, the physicians who don't believe in blood, the biologists who don't believe in chemistry, and the geologists who don't believe in Noah's flood will continue to be persecuted by Big Science.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 30, 2008 3:54 PM
I'd still like to know when Abraham knew he would likely end up suing against his being dismissed. The cynic in me suggests it was before he even applied for the job.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | April 30, 2008 3:59 PM
er, that's, "the geologists who believe in Noah's flood, will continue to be persecuted by Big Science."
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davfidson | April 30, 2008 3:59 PM
Furthermore, the court documents stated, research in Hahn's lab "would have involved application of evolutionary principles without qualifications concerning the acceptance of evolution."
This bit makes me uneasy. No-one should ever be required to "accept" a scientific a theory. (They should, however, be required to fully understand the theories they reject. Naturally, this rules out 99.9% of creationists.)
For example, a creationist might adopt a "Sunday Logic" view to evolution and build a firewall in his mind between a proper understanding of the theory, and religious fundamentalism (most likely by abusing the word "microevolution"). Such a belief should be no bar (in itself) to holding an academic position.
Posted by: hyperdeath | April 30, 2008 4:00 PM
It was further reported that Nathaniel Abraham is, in fact, bigger than a bread box, but far smaller than a Buick.
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | April 30, 2008 4:01 PM
Well, when I win my lawsuit for being fired from my physics job, all because I disbelieve in that fantasy "momentum", things will look a lot different.
Hmmm. This is fun. Can I play, too?
I design satellite communication links, so I guess I could start professing a belief in the Flat Earth Theory. :-)
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | April 30, 2008 4:04 PM
I'm sure Ben Stein is sympathetic to this poor man's plight.
I can hear him droning now: "Here's another example of supression."
Posted by: MikeM | April 30, 2008 4:07 PM
I'd still like to know when Abraham knew he would likely end up suing against his being dismissed. The cynic in me suggests it was before he even applied for the job.
Probably not, unless he's a total idiot. If he had it planned all along, he would surely have gotten the lawsuit filed before the deadline.
Posted by: Donnie B. | April 30, 2008 4:07 PM
The same thing happened to me when I went into an interview at Microsoft and after the hired me, I told them computers were a hoax from "Big Government" to make everyone still think the moon landing was real.
I dunno... I still think the Windows Registry is a vast hoax perpetrated on us all.
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | April 30, 2008 4:08 PM
I wanna play too-- I've hosted an experimental radio broadcast for years; but secretly I know that all TRUE music was composed from 1750 to 1830 by white European men!
LOL
Posted by: DaveX | April 30, 2008 4:13 PM
Well, he's approximately two ten-billionths of a Wales in area standing up, though rather more lying down. Either way, he's obviously not of much consequence.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 30, 2008 4:14 PM
Correcting an errorous comment by another.
Gonzalez is headed for Grove City. Western side of Pennsylvania, north of Pittsburgh. Nowhere near Philadelphia.
- Kurt
Posted by: Kurt | April 30, 2008 4:16 PM
Sources tell me there's unrest at NHGRI over a new post-bach Francis Collins hired for a 1-2 year internship at his lab. Turns out they met through a church retreat and apparently the new recruit does not have a degree in biology or related field.
Posted by: caynazzo | April 30, 2008 4:16 PM
Call a spade by any other name, i.e.:
"would have involved application of evolutionary principles without qualifications concerning the acceptance of evolution."
It's still a spade.
Does anyone understand?!
It's still a spade!
Posted by: leeleeone | April 30, 2008 4:17 PM
Boy, Abraham's attorney David Gibbs has a winning track record, doesn't he? First he loses the Terri Schiavo case and now he fails to file the necessary paperwork for a client's lawsuit, resulting in the suit being tossed out.
David Gibbs: He represents Fundamentalist Christians for free, and he's worth every penny!
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | April 30, 2008 4:17 PM
I'm pretty sure everyone is losing respect for Francis Collins more and more these days, so that doesn't surprise me.
Posted by: Dennis N | April 30, 2008 4:20 PM
Maybe it is a bad thing that this apparently wasn't decided on the merits of the case. But why would he have to sue for anything, when he's found employment with equal slackjaws at Liberty University? Furthermore, if you're now working for a plainly religious university which requires that you sign a statement believing in the Bible, how is that supposed to bolster your science credentials, or even your claim to want to do science?
I hope that more of the details of this case will come out, at least if no appeals are filed. Because there were claims that he wouldn't participate in any situation in which his work would be used for a "macroevolutionary" interpretation. If that's true, he was way over the line.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 30, 2008 4:22 PM
If academic freedom is a road, this event is a curb stone.
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 30, 2008 4:26 PM
Well I study computer science, and I don't want my research into microchips being used in blue colored computers.
Posted by: Dennis N | April 30, 2008 4:27 PM
Another example of Big Law suppressing ID.
Will Ben Stein do a sequel called Dismissed!: No Torts Allowed?
And I'm so glad to see the conservatives fighting so hard against judicial activism...
Posted by: Tulse | April 30, 2008 4:28 PM
I'll join in the game --
As a neuroscience student who doesn't believe in the so-called "neuron doctrine", I am positively *shocked* at some of the closed-minded ridicule my reticular views get from my intolerant Cajalist professors!
This is fun...
((As a side note, though, we scientists really need to clean up some of our terminology..."central dogma of molecular biology"..."neuron doctrine"...come on guys, how are we going to efficiently combat IDiocy when some of our own language suggests their claims are right?))
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 30, 2008 4:28 PM
#14
Why are private religious institutes (eg, Wheaton) allowed to fire/hire based on the religious views of their job applicants, but when a private secular institute declines to hire someone on the basis that the applicant believes mythologically based nonsense rather than real science (and thus is genuinely unqualified for the position), that person inevitably cries "religious intolerance"?
I think that it's because they accept federal (and state?) monies for their research that they must comply with federal (and state) hiring laws.
Posted by: shiftlessbum | April 30, 2008 4:31 PM
Reminds me of my favorite joke from the old country (where religion was taught in school):
The regional school inspector visits the final oral exams, and sits in on an exam in religion. The pupil answers all questions brilliantly, but the teacher seems uneasy.
During the grading, the teacher proposes a D. The inspector is visibly upset:"But he knew everything you asked him".
To which the teacher replies: "Oh sure, he knows everything, he just doesn't believe it".
Posted by: Mu | April 30, 2008 4:32 PM
So, he not only was incompetent at his job (studying the evolution of tigerfish by the way)
He was incompetent at meeting legal deadlines!
One more blow against ignorance!
Posted by: Britomart | April 30, 2008 4:38 PM
To people like Stein this is just proof that their conspiracy theory that everyone is out to get them is true. They said that science, the judiciary, education, and the media were all out to get them.
And the simple fact that these institutions just happen to favor science over pseudoscience in every other case doesn't at all indicate to them (they can't decide on the evidence, so they ought to at least try to figure things out relationally--often a useful rule of thumb) that these institutions are just favoring science over pseudoscience this time as well.
The difference between the decisions against UFO nuts and other cranks, and themselves? Well, this time it's them, and they have the truth, not like all of those evil lying swine. The courts, media, education, and gov't are all scientifically and properly keeping black magic out of the science classes, naturally, which is why it's so egregious that they are so anti-science by keeping ID out of the schools.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 30, 2008 4:43 PM
Gee, how did Ben Stein manage to miss interviewing this guy? Unlike the cases cited in the movie, this guy did actually lose a job AND for reasons directly related to his anti-evolution views.
I expect it'll get played up in The Usual Circles as another example of Darwinist Persecution. I'd like to see more details, though: specifically something that showing that his beliefs would materially get in the way of actually doing the job -- none of this Marcus Ross-style "competent in the evolutionary paradigm even though he doesn't believe it" ambiguity.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | April 30, 2008 4:47 PM
It appears that Big Justice is in bed with Big Science. Hey - this is Massachusetts.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 30, 2008 4:50 PM
I'm so sick of "respecting" other people's religion. Whenever you don't give them special privilege and tip-toe around them, they cry like little babies, saying you're "intolerant". You really do need to have child-like faith to be religious, complete with the tears and the whines. Yes, I'm intolerant of ignorance.
Posted by: Dennis N | April 30, 2008 4:54 PM
should JPL be tolerant of Ptolemians? I reject your Copernican theory but still want to calculate deep space probe trajectories. wtf?
Posted by: SteveM | April 30, 2008 4:55 PM
Well, I'm of this opinion - believe what you want. I don't care if you believe that life started because little green men did it, or goddidit, or allahdidit.
Believe what you want, just don't let it interfere with your work... which it sounds like he did, from the earlier article "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"
He would have let his personal beliefs interfere with his work, which I do NOT agree with.
Posted by: Leigh Shryock | April 30, 2008 4:57 PM
Thesr things always remind me of the ONION headline;
"Christian Scientist Pharmacist Refuses to Dispense Any Drugs Whatsoever"
Posted by: fardels bear | April 30, 2008 5:04 PM
Some here seem to disagree, but I agree. In this case this isn't even an issue because he said before he was initially fired that he would do the research and collect the data, but would refuse to analyze it to determine evolutionary relationships. That's the *whole point* of his job. If all he's going to do is collect data, well, a college grad in bio could do that.
Posted by: Nimravid | April 30, 2008 5:07 PM
What is it with evolutionists and zebra fish? PZ, Danio, I'm looking at you.
And to join the game:
I work for the FAA, buying air to ground "communication radios". So therefore I don't believe that airplanes can fly, and I want to see some of this Ether/Aether the radio waves move in. Oh yeah, I might as well get some phlogiston if I'm out shopping.
Posted by: True Bob | April 30, 2008 5:09 PM
I got one - I'm an OB/GYN resident. In Genesis, god said to Eve (and forgive me for not quoting from the King James B): "In sadness shall you bear sons".
I refuse to give epidural anesthesia to any parturient women giving birth to sons!
Do you think I'll win my lawsuit?
Posted by: DocWazoo | April 30, 2008 5:17 PM
kid bitzer@#7:
Beware the floating ellipsis in your quote:
"application of evolutionary principles...without acceptance of evolution"
The ellipsis needs to be between without and acceptance.
And that changes the meaning completely.
As I read it, what the defendants meant was that the job required unqualified acceptance of evolution.
Posted by: sachatur | April 30, 2008 5:18 PM
Gee, how did Ben Stein manage to miss interviewing this guy? Unlike the cases cited in the movie, this guy did actually lose a job AND for reasons directly related to his anti-evolution views.
actually, this isn't the case at all.
think of a pharmacist losing their jobs because they refuse to fill a prescription.
while their motivations for not filling the scrip might vary, in fact the only relevant issue is that they refused to fulfill the contractual obligations of their job. IOW, the motivations of the employers themselves don't vary a jot, and have nothing to do with any religious beliefs professed by either employer or employee.
It's the same thing here. This person was hired to do specific work for a specific contract, and simply refused to do the work. It hardly matters WHY. They signed a contract, and the granting agency had well defined expectations which were not being met by this particular employee.
It's as simple as that.
As to this specific outcome, I'm happy at the initial result, but sorry that the underlying issue was not resolved.
That said, I do think the judge acted entirely appropriately. Procedural issues are no less important in a courtroom than anywhere else.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 30, 2008 5:19 PM
Ichy, I agree completely, but there's a current court case in WI from a pharmacist who is insisting he has the right to override his employer's wishes and neither dispense the morning-after pill nor direct the customer to a pharmacy that will fill the prescription.
Total unadulterated nonsense.
And he'll win.
no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: Shirley Knott | April 30, 2008 5:26 PM
I have a just a small quibble with the author of this piece. I haven't registered to view the whole article, but in the bit PZ cites above, the author of the article lets the old "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" line go unchallenged. It even gets repeated twice. I know this appears in "The Scientist," which presumably has a mostly savvy readership, but still I'd like see it pointed out in the piece that this whole line is a bunch of crap.
Posted by: Pete M. | April 30, 2008 5:26 PM
#43:
Of course they should. They're obviously suppressing the Angel Propulsion Theory which posits satellites and deep space probes are actually being carried on the wings of angels. Its just one more example of Newtonianists forcing their secular Theory of Gravity onto the minds of our children.
Posted by: Larry | April 30, 2008 5:27 PM
#49 sachatur--
i'm happy to re-punctuate as you suggest, or even just print the whole damn thing without ellipsis:
"application of evolutionary principles without qualifications concerning the acceptance of evolution."
but i don't share your confidence that the meaning is reversed by the change of punctuation.
and that's largely because i no longer feel confident that i know what the clause at issue means *at all*.
what, just as one example of my incomprehension, are the "qualifications" referred to? do they mean job-qualifications, i.e. what makes the candidate qualified for the job? so does it say that acceptance of evolution was not among the qualifications that a candidate for the job needed?
or do they mean qualifications, i.e. modifications or reservations, in one's acceptance of a view? "i will agree to the plan, but only with qualifications", means "i do not unqualifiedly agree to the plan". in which case they might mean: to perform this job, you have to accept evolution unqualifiedly, i.e. without any fingers crossed behind your back.
when i wrote #7, i thought it was the first. now i don't feel much confidence either way. and since i'm not sure what the unelided sentence means, i don't know whether you are right about the effect of my misplaced ellipses.
i think i will need to look at the actual "court documents" (and which party wrote them?) before i will feel any confidence that i understand the quoted line.
Posted by: kid bitzer | April 30, 2008 5:34 PM
Nonsense. If I hire a staff accountant he damn well better "believe in" GAAP, GAAS, Income Tax Law, Double-Entry Accounting and Professional Ethics. Otherwise he's going to be short for my firm and short for accounting.
Unless he wants to work for Enron. I here they don't believe in Balance Sheet Accounting, GAAP and Ethics... Oh, wait, I believe they're bankrupt... Never mind...
Posted by: Moses | April 30, 2008 5:36 PM
And he'll win.
what do you base that on?
I haven't looked at specifically how similar court cases have resolved, but my admittedly fuzzy recollection is that similar previous cases were not resolved in that manner.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 30, 2008 5:37 PM
The defendants, however, argued that Abraham did not file the lawsuit within the timeframe specified by law. Furthermore, the court documents stated, research in Hahn's lab "would have involved application of evolutionary principles without qualifications concerning the acceptance of evolution."
Haven't read the decision and can't be arsed to register on the linked site, so I'm just scratching my belly here. But: the defendants argued the suit was time-barred; "court documents" (filed by the defendants?) claimed that the plaintiff's research would have required knowledge and acceptance of evolution. In both cases, very possibly true (indeed, in the latter case, obviously and incontrovertibly true). But on what basis did the court toss this jackass out on his ear?
BTW, Ichthyic is completely correct, esp. in the last two paras @50. I hope you won't take this as an insult, Ic (and coming from me it really isn't); but you have the makings of a fine lawyer.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | April 30, 2008 5:37 PM
They're obviously suppressing the Angel Propulsion Theory which posits satellites and deep space probes are actually being carried on the wings of angels.
ah!
that's what REALLY happened to the mars probe that crashed on the surface, right? Someone failed to utilize the angel-wings theory!
...phht, and they tried to tell us it was just a metric/sae conversion error.
now the truth comes out!
:P
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 30, 2008 5:40 PM
Moses @55,
So far as I know, Enron's accounts were, technically, in accordance with US GAAP. They wouldn't have accorded with IFRS but then, that fact might be part of the explanation of why the SEC has done a major rethink on the relative virtues of the two sets of standards.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | April 30, 2008 5:43 PM
I'd consider him unfit for the position based purely on the fact that he doesn't know what a scientific theory is.
Posted by: MF | April 30, 2008 5:45 PM
Would they let an agnostic or atheist become a priest..?
- Sam Davies
Well, they do in the Church of England!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 30, 2008 5:51 PM
I hope you won't take this as an insult, Ic (and coming from me it really isn't); but you have the makings of a fine lawyer.
certainly not (especially coming from you ;) ). A lawyer employs many of the same skill-sets (e.g., logic, diagnostics, evidence based analysis, etc.) as scientists and md's do.
sorry to get a bit OT, but it seems to be a recurring theme of some of the threads around here of late...
Although I always appreciate a good lawyer joke, I'm always quick to point out the value of lawyers in the very history of modern society. One could easily argue that modern society itself would simply not exist without them.
professor, lawyer, politician, priest.... none of these things inherently promote "corruption" as professions isolated from the people who pursue them.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 30, 2008 5:51 PM
btw, @Mrs. Tilton-
I'm relatively sure there have been several cases revolving around the religion/pharmacist issue.
Are you familiar with the outcomes and arguments of any of those cases?
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 30, 2008 5:56 PM
Maybe not. In other states, these wingnut pharmacists have been losing big time. This is practicing medicine without a license and not practicing pharmacy with a license. It is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Posted by: raven | April 30, 2008 6:00 PM
Lawyers are like scalpels - really effective tools when used well and really damaging weapons when used to hurt, with the outcome dependent on the will of those using them, though that might be true of many people and things.
Morris Dees and John Yow (sic?) might be examplars of the uses of lawyers.
Posted by: Hap | April 30, 2008 6:03 PM
kid bitzer:
The point about the shifting meaning of the elided phrase was correct. The meaning was totally changed.
Your second definition of "qualification" applies. Application of evolutionary principles, without any modifications or reservations with respect to acceptance of evolution. No ifs, ands, or buts.
No butts, either, apparently.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 30, 2008 6:07 PM
The most serious problem we have with lawyers today is that too many students treat the law as a good way to get a professional education without having to master any math or science to speak of. The LSAT needs to add a math/science section that challenges the student.
Posted by: freelunch | April 30, 2008 6:09 PM
In other states, these wingnut pharmacists have been losing big time.
I can haz linkys for my collection, plz?
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 30, 2008 6:15 PM
The LSAT needs to add a math/science section that challenges the student.
ooh, on that line, I would REALLY like to see law students forced to take a year of statistics and probability.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 30, 2008 6:16 PM
#67
and your confidence in your pronouncement is based on what exactly?
a full reading of the court documents?
i mean--your reading certainly could be right. that's why i raised the issue.
but myself i'd want to do more looking into it before i declared. given only the snippet of prose we have from the article, it looks quite opaque and open to construal, i.e. lawyerly.
mrs tilton? if you're one of the lawyering horde, would you like to weigh in on interpretation? or get us some more of the court documents?
Posted by: kid bitzer | April 30, 2008 6:19 PM
sorry--
my #70 should have been addressed to #66, not #67.
Posted by: kid bitzer | April 30, 2008 6:21 PM
A lot of case law on google. Here is one such. Word has gotten around that pharmacists who don't want to actually do the work of pharmacists should find another way to annoy people.
Posted by: raven | April 30, 2008 6:25 PM
DennisN writes:
I'm so sick of "respecting" other people's religion.
So? Start pointing and giggling and calling them "f@%^@!ING RETARDS" and it'll all be over in a couple decades.
Religion withers like a man's erection in the icy blasts of sincere mockery.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | April 30, 2008 6:34 PM
Kid - ok, I see your point. It does seem ambiguous, even now...
Posted by: Kseniya | April 30, 2008 6:36 PM
The Sincere Mockeries: Band Name!
Posted by: Kseniya | April 30, 2008 6:38 PM
Religion withers like a man's erection in the icy blasts of sincere mockery.
so is the same comeback applicable?
"It's not the size, it's what you do with it"
:p
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 30, 2008 6:40 PM
Well the sciences seem to be doing some good work keeping the incompetent out of the profession. Now if only Pharmacology could keep the anti-choice freaks out of the CVSs, Targets, and Walgreens...oops, looks like I'm late to that party.
Kick the winguts out and let them sue like the litigious fools they are.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | April 30, 2008 6:43 PM
It's tiresome to keep reading the theory vs. hypothesis misdirection.
As a result, I've been trying to avoid using the word "theory" even in casual, non-science-related contexts when "hypothesis" can substitute.
Unfortunately, I hypothesize that this will not solve the problem.
Posted by: Spaulding | April 30, 2008 7:25 PM
#40:
Because Abraham is an Olde Timey Creationist. And if you're pushing ID to the public you can't talk about "God doin' it".
Posted by: Martin Hutton | April 30, 2008 7:48 PM
We should definitely be careful about what principle we rely on to justify firing this fellow. I don't think we can honestly make the claim that belief in a particular theory is necessary in order to carry out research on the theory or arising from it. (The optics of the claim are terrible too.) We defend the scientific method on the grounds that it eliminates (or at least reduces as far as is humanly possible) the effect of bias.
Not only should it not matter who carries out an experiment - the results shouldd be the same regardless - but it also shouldn't matter who designs an experiment - whether it's a supporter or an opponent of the hypothesis/theory being tested. Possibly more often than not, scientists have an agenda when they conduct an experiment - the desire to prove that their idea is correct and that somebody else's idea is wrong.
Opposing a particular theory doesn't preclude being able to develop predictions from it and being able to design experiments which test the predictions. Scientists do it all the time. Who better than an opponent of a theory to devise rigorous tests of it?
So what's the problem with employing the anti-evolutionist at Woods Hole? Not his disbelief in evolution per se, but the fact that his disbelief is relgiously based. Scientists are presumed to have the intellectual integrity to value truth over proving themselves correct. A scientist will be able to change her mind when the evidence requires it.
This guy, however, presumably believes that no possible experiment could disprove creationism. He would state upfront that he cannot conceive of any evidence which would cause him to change his mind. This position calls his intellectual integrity into question. Someone who believes that any evidence which apears to favour evolution is a priori wrong and must be disregarded, no matter how convincing it is, has a completely different definition of truth than scientists (and other rational people) do.
To him, truth is what the bible says. To scientists, truth is is the set of theories which have thus far withstood testing by the scientific method. You can only be honest with respect to your own definition of truth. For a creationist, accepting and publishing experimental results which supported evolution would be dishonest - it would violate (biblical) "truth", which always trumps scientific truth. (This alternative understanding of truth and honesty might explain creationists' frequent lies. In their eyes, you're not lying if you're upholding the truth.)
A non-believer in evolution could still do honest (and potentially valuable) science so long as she is committed to the scientific method as a (or the) means of discovering truth. But if your standard of truth is anything else - like the bible - you may be going through the motions but you are not doing science.
That's why this guy should be fired: he is incapable of intellectual honesty with respect to the definition of truth which defines science.
Posted by: plum grenville | April 30, 2008 8:00 PM
Marcus Ranum wrote: So? Start pointing and giggling and calling them "f@%^@!ING RETARDS" and it'll all be over in a couple decades.
'Spose it's political keereckness or somethin' (or maybe just a thought that we ought not to kick folks when they're down), but I'd love to see comments creative enough not to use "retards" or derivations thereof in the process of delivering ridicule.
Posted by: Jud | April 30, 2008 8:02 PM
Not only should it not matter who carries out an experiment - the results shouldd be the same regardless
regardless of what?
whether they knew enough to actually construct proper methods to begin with?
'cause that's at part what is at issue here too. Not just his refusal to do the work (which is the basis of the defense, and rightly so), but whether or not he even COULD have.
and it is entirely relevant.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 30, 2008 8:08 PM
@#69 Ichthyic --
Actually, I think that at least a semester of s & p should be required of someone getting a liberal arts education.
When I took stats, a lot of the basics about interpreting data seemed like common sense to me, but if there's anything I learned from my fellow students, it's that my definition of "common sense" is not so common...
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 30, 2008 8:52 PM
Actually, I think that at least a semester of s & p should be required of someone getting a liberal arts education.
agreed.
In fact, basic probability should be taught in high school, perhaps at least offered as an AP course, if not incorporated as a unit in either political science/sociology or one of the mathematics courses.
It's very important, I think, for everyone to have at least a basic understanding of probability and statistics, if for no other reason than to understand what lies behind the poll data so often relied on by the media in this country.
It's of course even more valuable (indispensable) for those of us who actually design experiments.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 30, 2008 9:03 PM
@freelunch # 68, Ichthic # 69:
freelunch: The LSAT needs to add a math/science section that challenges the student.
Ichthyic: ooh, on that line, I would REALLY like to see law students forced to take a year of statistics and probability.
Apologies for being a bit OT here, but y'all pushed a hot button. The LSAT should definitely include a math and (forensic?) science section *not* consisting entirely of multiple-guess questions. I teach intro stats as an adjunct at my hometown no-name state university. I've seen several examples of gross misapplication of probabilistic or statistical reasoning by lawyers. Don't have details at hand just now, but iirc mostof the guilty parties were prosecuting attorneys. Sadly, I suppose it's not possible in this country to prevent the statistically ignorant from becoming prosecutors or (even worse) judges.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | April 30, 2008 9:03 PM