So there was this guy, right? He worked at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. His research was specifically targeted at evolutionary processes. But he was a creationist, so he refused to address evolution in his research. So he was fired. So he sued.
In a 2004 letter to [Nathaniel] Abraham, his boss, Woods Hole senior scientist 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. (Boston Globe, Dec. 7.)
I mean, what did he expect?
"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?"
What indeed?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I am so amused. A creationist lost his job at Woods Hole, and he was a zebrafish developmental biologist. Hey, I know a little bit about that!
The creationist, Nathaniel Abraham, briefly held a post-doctoral position under Mark Hahn at Woods Hole. Here's the creationist's side:
Nathaniel Abraham…
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 "…
The detritus of the Bush era continues to wash ashore, but some of it has decomposed sufficiently that it isn't as noxious as when first dumped into the sea. One example is what was left of a Federal lawsuit filed by a creationist post doc against the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution alleging…
If you fail at everything else in life, you could always try to work for a scientific organization, reveal that you're a creationist, and then land a job as a professor at Liberty University. That's just what Nathaniel Abraham did, and now he's suing the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic…
"I have a cleaning woman who is a Seventh-day Adventist and neither of us feel any tension,"
This fellow's statement, which endorses the view that Christians are only suitable for menial tasks, would seem help the plaintiff in this case. Imagine, for instance, had this professor said "I have a cleaning woman who is BLACK and neither of us feel any tension" with regards to a racial discrimination case?
Incidentally, the facts of this case are being reported as being completely different from what they are. This fellow was apparently performing just fine at his job with no problems whatsoever until he told his supervisor in passing that he did not believe in evolution. Soon, he was fired solely on the basis of his belief and not his job performance. It would be very similar to firing someone after eight months solely because of finding out that they are homosexual.
Woods Hole has to prove that this fellow was not performing in his job. Sure, they are claiming that now that he is suing them, but again why was he not disciplined or fired previously? The plaintiff's primary problem is that he is suing for the right to be a creationist in an evolutionary lab. His real lawsuit ought to be the fact that he would have never been fired had he not told his supervisor that he was not an evolutionist.
Incidentally, the fact that this fellow was able to complete a Ph.D. and be hired at Woods Hole for postdoc and successfully perform there for eight months disproves the lie that it is impossible to be an effective biologist without being an evolutionist. And the fact that he exposed this lie for what it was is the real reason why he was fired, and the real reason why Woods Hole is now complaining that he had poor job performance (which again they will have to provide actual evidence of at the trial). And we saw with a recent story in the New York Times that a growing number of universities are dealing with this "problem" by refusing to admit candidates into their doctoral programs unless they declare a belief in evolution first. I can't wait until the first kid with a 3.8 GPA from a reputable institution, sky high GRE scores, and great recommendations gets rejected and sues.
Woods Hole is now claiming "we do not discriminate on the basis of religion." Sorry Woods Hole, but unless you can prove that this person was unable to do his job or refusing to do so, it appears that you did just that.
healtheland said
What is your more reliable source of information?
Basically because research does not consist of doing the same task day after day. My understanding is that he had accepted a position in which it was clear that evolution was a focal point. He performed experiments and collected data, then when it was time to analyse the data and prepare publications he announced that he would not allow the principal investigator to utilize the results if there were any mention of evolution. In other words, not only was he refusing to do his job, he was attempting to also prevent others from doing their jobs.
No it does not. That is like claiming that if I had said "I have a cleaning woman who is Black" it would endorse the view that Blacks are suitable only for menial tasks. This would ignore the fact that at the same time I could have truthfully said "It does not bother me that 80% of my colleagues are Black and so is my boss and his boss." You are making an unjustified extrapolation.
A mapmaker can hire a printer who is a "flattie" but he won't keep a stealth flattie as a cartographer. Likewise, a bio lab cannot afford the dedication of of an employee dealing with data to Nescience.
I ran across the creo: "scientists used to believe in a flat Earth". I need a short form quickie. I tried: "There were two hypotheses, 'flat' and 'round'until Eratosthenes demonstrated rotundity about 2200 years ago. He also had a better size figure than Columbus". Adding "There were some who found the Theory of Rotundity untraditional and wouldn't face the evidence. Can you tighten it up?