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 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.
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.
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.
Abraham is now working at Liberty University, where all creationist poseurs who claim to be scientists go to die.
One other thing I have to point out about this article. It’s written by Beth Daley of the Boston Globe, and she gets it mostly right. I noticed these subtle little snippets that represent the scientific position; they are from perfect, but they at least get a simple message to the reader.
The battle between science and creationism has reached the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution…
We have to emphasize that point more. The creationists, both the outspoken biblical kind and the devious intelligent design kind, are eager to claim the mantle of science for their ideology. They don’t get to have it. This really is a battle between science and religious mythology.
Evolution is a fundamental tenet of biology that species emerge because of genetic changes to organisms that, over time, favor their survival.
Yes, evolution is fundamental to biology. You can’t do major areas of biological science without evolution; even those areas where you can grind away at a narrow problem without much consideration of theory are built on a foundation of evolutionary biology. I have to nitpick a little, though: “tenet” is not a particularly good word to use for a scientific theory (but scientists do use it in a casual way, so I can’t be too cranky about it), and speciation is almost certainly not a product of selection, as the passage implies, but of other, literally non-Darwinian processes. But Ms Daley’s heart is in the right place, so I’ll let that slide for now.
How the devil did he get hired in the first place?!?
Evolution is a fundamental tenet of biology that species emerge because of genetic changes to organisms that, over time, favor their survival.
See, we always knew your position on evolution made you a biological fundamentalist. PZ. :)
WHAT ABOUT ATHEISTS?
No Freedom Without Religion?
There’s a gap in Mitt Romney’s admirable call for tolerance.
Friday, December 7, 2007; Page A38
The Washington Post Editorial
RELIGIOUS liberty is, as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared yesterday, “fundamental to America’s greatness.” With religious division inciting violence across the globe, he is right to celebrate America’s tradition of religious tolerance. He’s right, too, that no one should vote against him, or for him, because he is a Mormon. We only wish his empathy for religious minorities such as his own extended a bit further, to those who do not believe in God.
It is regrettable that 47 years after John F. Kennedy felt the need to promise voters that his Catholic faith would not dictate his conduct as president, Mr. Romney felt compelled to offer similar assurances that “no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.” It’s regrettable, too, that the skepticism and even hostility some voters feel toward Mormonism has been played upon by the man who has emerged as his chief rival in Iowa, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who is running commercials that proclaim him to be a “Christian leader.” That is why Mr. Romney felt the need to detail his creed: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind.” If, as Mr. Romney correctly says, the country’s founders took care not to impose a religious test for any public office, a candidate’s belief, or not, in the divinity of Christ ought to be irrelevant.
Where Mr. Romney most fell short, though, was in his failure to recognize that America is composed of citizens not only of different faiths but of no faith at all and that the genius of America is to treat them all with equal dignity. “Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom,” Mr. Romney said. But societies can be both secular and free. The magnificent cathedrals of Europe may be empty, as Mr. Romney said, but the democracies of Europe are thriving.
“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government,” Mr. Romney said. But not all Americans acknowledge that, and those who do not may be no less committed to the liberty that is the American ideal.
Yeah, I’m with Diego. How the hell do you get a PhD in developmental biology or something close enough to it that your competitive for post-doc positions in developmental biology and not have your committee know about your issues with evolution? How in the hell did his letter writers not know he was a creationist? And if they did know, why on earth didn’t they take him aside and suggest that perhaps this particular post-doc position might not be up his ally?
what # 1 said
then again, creationists are good at lying and his real purpose was probably to get into a prestigious job like woods hole and undermine it with creation science
remember, these people dont understand that creationist nonsense is not an alternative set of theories
I can’t help wondering… the creationists who claim to be scientists, and honestly believe (hah) that they are… what do they actually do all day long? They already know the answer, after all. One would think that’d they’d soon get bored sitting around all day saying to each other “yes, God did it all… aren’t we clever?”.
Ah, I see what I did wrong there. I assumed honesty. Foolish of me.
I suspect that the current nature of the market is such that lots of newly minted PhDs take whatever job they can find.
There might be more to this story. Look at Abraham’s qualifications: a Masters in biology, and a Ph.D. in philosophy? Those are terrible qualifications for post-doctoral work in a wet lab, and I’d be really reluctant to hire someone for benchwork who’d spent the last few years doing philosophy. The possibilities are that Abraham misrepresented his skill set, or, more likely, that he presented himself as someone who’d be useful in applying theory to the interpretation of the data. In which case his denial of evolution becomes even more egregiously outrageous and a violation of the work he was hired to do.
A PhD in philosophy focuses my curiosity even more directly at what his letters could have possibly said to make him competitive.
My (completely uninformed) guess is that he deliberately set out to get hired and then fired, so he could be the next great martyr to the evilutionist conspiracy.
Can anyone find him through pubmed?
Dembski and Berlinski, leading lights of the Discovery Institute, also have doctorates in philosophy. I hope this doesn’t mean there’s a fundamental problems with PhDs in Ph.
Long time ago, as Ph.D. student in the Netherlands, I supervised an exchange student from Kent State. Her work was mediocre at best, and she refuse to take evolution into account, despite that we are an animal ecology lab where evolution is a central theme. Anyway, after three reports that I gave back to her with comments about the lack of evolution, she finally wrote something abysmally bad but including evolution. At that time, she had to go back, and I had to give her a grade. A C would have been already to much, but taking he low standards of her university in account (sorry but what where final year students coming to do research were less trained than our 1st years), I gave her a B. She threw a fit of immense proportions, claiming discrimination, unfair treatment etc. After a bit of time, I heard that her supervisor at Kent State had increased the grade to an A. That was the end of our lab of taking exchange students from Kent State.
A PhD in Philosophy is enough to get you a berth at Wood’s Hole?
Sweet! With my background in protein kinases and hamster biology, I’d be a shoe-in (as long as I’m not up against any particle physicists or solid-state chemists).
There’s a PhD student in my department who regularly writes articles for the student press denouncing evolution. I’ve been told by other grad students to leave him alone because “it doesn’t matter for the kind of work he does”, and that I should “respect his beliefs”. He’s well-known to be brilliant, has full NSERC funding, and meanwhile writes in student press that believing in evolution and conservation biology are incompatible because evolution is all about survival of the fittest.
He studies cell biology and physiology… call me crazy here, but I think if you think a system was designed by a loving god, that’s going to bias your expectations of that system. His supervisor tells me that “we just don’t talk about it”.
And to think…in a few years, he’s going to have a PhD. With the number of publications and grants he has, he’s going become faculty.
Long time ago, as a Ph.D. student in the Netherlands, I supervised an exchange student from Kent State. Her work was mediocre at best, and she refused to take evolution into account (she was a hard-core creationist), despite that the lab was an animal ecology lab where evolution is a central theme. Anyway, after three reports that I gave back to her with comments about the lack of evolution, she finally wrote something abysmally bad but now including evolution. By that time, she had to go back to the US, and I had to give her a grade. A C would have been already to much, but taking the low standards of her university in account (sorry but what where final year students coming to do research were less trained than our 1st years), I gave her a B. She threw a fit of immense proportions, claiming discrimination, unfair treatment etc. After a bit of time, I heard that her supervisor at Kent State had increased her grade to an A. That was the end for our lab of taking exchange students from Kent State.
(should learn to hit the preview button ;-)
Definitely something way out here.
A Ph.D. in philosophy doesn’t sound very useful for analyzing data either. One would rather have someone with computer skills or mathematics. These days molecular evolution is usually a lot of number crunching of sequence data.
Abraham got a job and refused to do it. So what does he expect? This might have been a setup from the creos from the start.
The bigger mystery, how did he get hired?
Mark Hahn might have thought a bit about hiring a Ph.D. in philosophy when there are hordes of qualified Ph.D.s running around, especially in Mass. Or he didn’t bother to check his references and CV which might have been “creative”. Or he might have hired the guy as a favor for someone.
Alternatively, Abraham might have cooked his application materials thoroughly and was a convincing liar.
More questions than answers here. This is an iceberg, most of the story is hidden right now.
“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.”
Yeah, that’s not going to be quote-mined by the DI anytime soon.
Not to be a conspiracy monger, but maybe Abraham, like with PZ’s hypothetical Sunday school job, intentionally sought a position that he knew he’d be fired from so he could play the religious martyr. Considering IDists seem to now be focused on that PR tactic, what with the Expelled movie, would it really be beneath them to manufacture incidents like this?
speciation is almost certainly not a product of selection, as the passage implies
We could debate all day whether speciation is driven by selection — for what it’s worth, Coyne and Orr argue that selection is necessary for the reproductive isolation of two populations, even in allopatry (with experimental data to back it up). But the big problem is the central role the author claims for selection in all of evolution, not just speciation.
PZ wrote: Yes, evolution is fundamental to biology. You can’t do major areas of biological science without evolution; even those areas where you can grind away at a narrow problem without much consideration of theory are built on a foundation of evolutionary biology. I have to nitpick a little, though: “tenet” is not a particularly good word to use for a scientific theory (but scientists do use it in a casual way, so I can’t be too cranky about it), and speciation is almost certainly not a product of selection, as the passage implies, but of other, literally non-Darwinian processes. But Ms Daley’s heart is in the right place, so I’ll let that slide for now.
“Unfortunately, conflation of fact and theory in this regard is not limited to opponents of evolution. Some biologists make the inverse mistake of considering clear evidence of common descent as evidence that it occurred by natural selection. Certainly, one can propose that natural selection is responsible for any changes that show evidence of having been adaptive, but change through time (evolution as fact or path) does not, by itself, evince any particular mechanism (evolution as theory). Neither this failure to distinguish between fact or path and theory by scientists, nor that perpetuated by antievolutionists, is compatible with a proper understanding of the scientific definitions of these terms.”
Evolution as Fact, Theory, and Path
Journal Evolution: Education and Outreach
Publisher Springer New York
ISSN 1936-6426 (Print) 1936-6434 (Online)
Issue Volume 1, Number 1 / January, 2008
DOI 10.1007/s12052-007-0001-z
Pages 46-52
SpringerLink Date Tuesday, November 27, 2007
T. Ryan Gregory Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
Could someone explain something to a lowly college dropout?
If his doctorate is in philosophy, how is it he’s doing post-doctoral work in biology? Am I misunderstanding what “post-doctoral” means?
Unfortunately, This guy shares a name with that 12 year old killer guy, so I can’t find anything on this guy to try and back up any assertions. However, this feels like a total setup. Why bring this to anyone’s attention if you genuinely felt you could do the work requested?
Also, the cynic in me thinks that it’s nice of them to get a taste of their own medicine. Honestly, how many people want your perspective employer to know you’re an Atheist, since that will figure prominently into their employment choice.
Oh, hi Kim! I hadn’t heard of your experience with the Kent State exchange student before. That sounds like it was a real fiasco!
A creationist lied? What are the chances?
WWJD? Probably slap Abraham up side the head and say, “Duh!”
OEJ
It’s not that unusual for someone with an undergrad degree in one field and a PhD in a second one to find a postdoc in their first discipline. I just yesterday met someone who had an undergrad bio degree, did their a masters in physics and then a PhD in engineering and is currently working on his second postdoc in a vertebrate bio lab. A PhD in philosophy is a bit more unusual than that sort of track, but it’s possible if there was something more to this guy’s undergraduate work, I suppose. Perhaps he converted to Creationism after he’d done some good work in evolutionary bio as an undergraduate.
They key may be in the name and nationality here. He’s Indian and his last name is Abraham. In my experience, Indians with biblical last names are usually Catholic. There’s a sizable Catholic population in India that dates back to the time of Thomas who went and prostletyzed there. Perhaps some time after coming to the US, he converted to an evangelical sect. I wouldn’t expect to find a lot of Catholics at Liberty University, after all. So maybe he had a good track record from before he underwent his conversion and parleyed that into a postdoc, intentionally hiding his Creationist leanings in a calculated attempt to cause trouble for a major research institution.
I fully expect to see more of this sort of thing in the future, frankly. In any case, WHOI is a top-notch research center as far as I know. I don’t think they’d have given this jackass an opportunity without good reason to do so.
A little further research, however, shows that Abraham has an odd pedigree even at the undergrad level. According to Liberty University’s Bio/Chem Faculty Page, Abraham’s undergrad degree is a Bachelor of Veterinary Science (BVS) from Tamilnadu Veterinary & Animal Sciences University. They don’t mention what he got his MS and PhD in, of course, because one would assume that an associate professor of biology would have a doctorate in biology or a closely related field. It’s just one more bit of deception on the part of the Creationists to put forth information in this sort of misleading way.
In fact, specific credentials aren’t given for any of the faculty members on that page. Without further investigation, it wouldn’t be possible to tell what any of them had doctorates in. I haven’t done it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if none or almost none of them had a PhD in biology or chemistry.
Eh,
Jesus supposedly said he was the son of god. His honesty has alot to be desired too.
I just received an email from a colleague reporting on the recent DOE study group on math and science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/318/5856/1534). One quote stood out, which I will repeat here:
“At the same time, says panel chair Larry
Faulkner, a chemist and former University of
Texas president, the report will note that little
or no good data exist on several hot-button
issues. On choosing between a prescribed
math curriculum presented by the teacher and
one that incorporates what piques the interest
of students, Faulkner notes, “it’s a matter of
religion, and it’s important for the world to
know that.”
WTF??
SG
He has a PhD in biology. PhD=Philosophiae Doctor (doctor of philosophy).
There’s a sizable Catholic population in India that dates back to the time of Thomas who went and prostletyzed there.
No, the Thomasine church/Nestorians aren’t Catholic at all… the remnants are Orthodox of one form or another. Roman Catholicism was introduced to India by the Portugese, in the 16th century, centered around Goa. Hence Dinesh D’Souza.
Being as Muslims and Jews have a presence in India, and Indian surnames are not as “stable” as Western surnames, the “Abraham” could be from any of the Levantine three, or, if he’s a convert, then he could have changed his name, especially if his birth name implied a non-Christian diety or practice.
When I was a PhD candidate (biomed) back in the 80’s, a guy in my class was an evangelical and a creationist.
He wasn’t a very good grad student, poor hands, slow and lazy and mostly just sort of uninspired. I’m pretty sure the faculty kept him on because he was otherwise a nice guy and, of course, a warm body.
At one time he told me point blank that his church sort of pushed him into a PhD program, and had plans for him to be so credentialed, so he could direct a science program for a college they were planning on starting.
He was just a pebble in a stream, just sort of giving himself up to the current.
I was, like, oh.mah.gawd! What a bunch of morons.
His right to believe a load of crap has been violated.
GOOD!
“speciation is almost certainly not a product of selection, as the passage implies, but of other, literally non-Darwinian processes.”
you got me confused. Can someone explain or indicate some good links for further reading ?
That would be completely surprising! I mean, Liberty does have a track-record for high science standards. There are a bunch of people from my home-town who go there…I tried to convince them as much as I could that they shouldn’t, but you know how arguing with fundamentalists is…fruitless. I was hoping that their college experience would possibly broaden their minds, but no, they are just going to close their minds and make them even smaller. I guess that’s okay, less competition for me when it comes time to go to grad school I suppose.
“Abraham is now working at Liberty University, where all creationist poseurs who claim to be scientists go to die.”
This statement made me laugh :)
I did research at Woods Hole for a year and the place is a magnet for eccentric slightly off kilter weirdos. Most are very intelligent, but I can see how an impostor might have slipped through.
“I did research at Woods Hole for a year and the place is a magnet for eccentric slightly off kilter weirdos.”
Like Hooper, from JAWS.
Jonathan Wells was sent to the University of California to get a Ph.D. in biology by Rev. Moon so he would be ‘credentialed.’ According to faculty members who taught him and and served on his advisory committee he concealed his beliefs and goals during his studies at Berkeley.
It’s looking like the reporter made a mistake: he apparently did do a biology Ph.D. on apoptosis in zebrafish.
Philosophers sometimes overestimate the practical implications of their favorite philosophical theory. There are some attacks on evolution which come from the standpoint that “Darwinism” violates some sort of necessary tenet of epistemology or metaphysics. You can tell that it won’t work before you even start!
Not really effective. As far as I know, there has never been a case where scientists were working happily with a model which made successful predictions, but had to throw it all out after someone ran up crying “Wait! Wait! Your theory contradicts philosophy! Hegel and Husserl already resolved all this!”
Really? Damn. And just when it looked like we were making progress. Thanks, Philosophy-Boy!
(Just speculating, but I could see a biology lab hoping that someone with a heavy degree in the Humanities might be more skilled in writing and communication than the rest of the science geeks.)
Re Comment #39:
Oh. Never mind.
I wonder how this person got to the job in the first place, didn’t have to have demonstrated some level of understanding or education prior to being hired?
What a splendid start of the weekend!
Ah, the famous graveyard of prehistoric Proboscideans have been identified. No doubt a locale of the lesser known relative to Deinotherium (“terrible creature”), Deo-not-here-ium (“terrible creationist”).
Why, isn’t the idea that everyone fits under a sufficiently large tenet?
What a splendid start of the weekend!
Ah, the famous graveyard of prehistoric Proboscideans have been identified. No doubt a locale of the lesser known relative to Deinotherium (“terrible creature”), Deo-not-here-ium (“terrible creationist”).
Why, isn’t the idea that everyone fits under a sufficiently large tenet?
According to the linked article:
Although it seems to have been a misreporting in this particular case, it’s not at all unheard of to do a post-doc in a different field than your PhD is–the idea is that by getting a PhD, you’ve demonstrated your ability to learn, synthesize, and carry out original research, so applying those same skills in a more-related or less-related field is a fairly well-trodden path.
Oh, I am *so* stealing that line!
Sastra again flashes that Molly-worthy style: let me echo her #41 on my own behalf.
I couldn’t find a vita for him, via Google, but I did find this in the SJU catalog:
Title: Role of programmed cell death in defining zebrafish development / Nathaniel Abraham.
Author: Abraham, Nathaniel.
Publisher: 2004.
Description: x, 201 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.
So it was a PhD in Biology, and I can see how just on the basis of dissertation he might’ve gotten hired. From the date of the dissertation, it doesn’t look as if he lasted very long (I didn’t see anywhere when exactly he started at Wood’s Hole).
dpr
Help!
I need someone to help me with the utter despair I am feeling about America and my fellow citizens. Between this and the Romney post, I am so afraid. It seems that large enough groups of people are religious, more than happy to be ignorant of or even reject science, and fundamentally push us ever backward to the dark ages. Do we really need our own Inquisition and Crusades to take the edge off of Christianity in this country?
Am I the only one who wants to curl up fetal when I see what is going on with the general public?
The Crusades are ongoing. But we still have a chance of stopping the Inquisition.
a pubmed search reveals no publications from N Abraham related to his graduate work at St. John’s. He is acknowledged on a paper from the lab, but his work was listed on as “in preparation”. His graduate work at St John’s was in a prominent lab in the field of Apoptosis.
I spend much of my professional time defending colleges and universities from lawsuits by disgruntled prospective or former employees, often faculty types. How come I can’t get cases like that?
Thank you, Edwin in #29, I thought I was going crazy here.
The article only said he has “a philosophy doctorate”, i.e. he has a Ph.D., doesn’t say in which discipline. The article did not say he has “a doctorate in philosophy”, which I guess would imply philosophy as the discipline.
That is really lame that the reporter didn’t get it right that his Ph.D. is in biology. Maybe what happened is he called St. John’s, spoke to a representative (as it is reported) but that was a student helper or something who said he had a “doctor of philosophy” degree (i.e., a Ph.D.), and it got misinterpreted as a doctorate in philosophy. The reporter should have asked for clarification to name the department which issued his degree and at least called that department to verify.
No satire is safe from becoming a reality. I remember a headline from THE ONION some time ago: “Christian Scientist Pharmacist Refuses to Dispense Any Drugs.” This one simply is: “Creation Scientist Refuses to Do Science.”
I’d be very interested to find out who helped pay for his education.
Shining Raven #53 said:
The article only said he has “a philosophy doctorate”, i.e. he has a Ph.D., doesn’t say in which discipline. The article did not say he has “a doctorate in philosophy”, which I guess would imply philosophy as the discipline.
Nobody uses the phrase “a philosophy doctorate” to mean a Ph.D. in general; it isn’t a word combination I’ve ever heard. It just sounds like the reporter was unaccustomed to talking about Ph.D. degrees. It is quite reasonable for PZ to interpret this as a Ph.D. in philosophy. The reporter should have said he has a “doctor of philosophy degree” if he wanted to spell it out, but better he should have said he has a “Ph.D. in biology”.
What the creationists are doing with scientific PhD programs and research institutes is classic entryism. This is a well known tactic of political extremists.
They infiltrate mainstream institutions by becoming established members, seeking to exert influence and raise the stature of their cause. They do not advertise their extremist views, at least not at first. Communists engaged in entryism with labor unions and mainstream political organizations. In recent years neo-fascists have used entryist tactics with the anti-globalization movement (“Third Positionist” anti-imperialism) and anti-jihadism (witness the blog wars concerning Vlams Belang). And there are many other examples with a variety of extremist groups.
Entryists are like parasitoid larvae within the host organism. What they hope to do is emerge in mature form from the infected organization, which is left a husk of itself. The best immune defense against entryism is to identify and expel the entryists.
Yeah, OK, he has a real doctorate, but wait: he gets fired from his only post-doc, and then gets hired at the Associate Professor level?? (note that the previously notorious Marcus Ross, who also has a PhD, is listed as Assistant Prof.).
That really makes my stomach hurt.
p.s. AND with zero publications???!
p.p.s. while selection may not be necessary to cause speciation, it sure as hell can cause speciation.
Prostitution comes in many forms, not just selling yourself for sex. This guy sold himself to get a science degree. He and that paleontology guy from URI are two peas of a pod – just do anything to get the science degree. I can’t understand why Liberty U would even want someone like them – these are faculty that are proven frauds, who took up space in science classes, regurgitated whatever it took, but actually did not learn the science. These are charlatans, with no integrity, no character. It reflects poorly on the university. I guess honor and character are just outmoded these days.
Science Citation Index shows no publications for Nathaniel Abraham at either St Johns or Woods Hole. Circumstances indicate that he would have worked with Dr. Richard A Lockshin in the Dept of Biology at St. Johns (who is easy to find in Citation Index).
Being fired for believing in evolution must look very good on CVs at Liberty.
BC (#50):
Sounds qualified for Liberty U to me.
Graculus said:
Being as Muslims and Jews have a presence in India, and Indian surnames are not as “stable” as Western surnames,
That state in India, Tamilnadu, has the practice of naming children to proclaim one’s political ideology or naming children after famous figures. The present Chief Minister of Tamilnadu, named his son Stalin, to affirm his communist leanings. That son is now heir apparent to the aging chief minister and might become the next CM. When you see news reports next year explaining how a guy named Stalin became the chief minister of an Indian state, remember, you read it here first!
My brother had a colleague named Abraham Lincoln, a hindu BTW and he said he had a brother named John F Kennedy! Both came to USA on IT jobs and had trouble getting taken seriously while ordering stuff by telephone or renting apartments.
You just answered your own question there.
Is there a betting pool on how long before Abraham gets introduced as a “former researcher at the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute…”? The faithful will accept the statement at face value while plugging their ears and going, “Nahya, nahya, I can’t hear you” when the rest of us go into low earth orbit.
I wonder if this is going to appear in Expelled. I’m saying that we should watch for it (maybe one of the characters “in the dark” to avoid Michael Korn–oh no, seems we don’t have those sorts, or extremely few at most), since it has to be one of the easiest take-downs possible.
What is important is that this is a good precedent for our side, though I don’t suppose there was much question about how it would turn out. How is a person going to do evolutionary biology while denying evolution and biology, after all?
Same goes for Sternberg, and by analogy, for Gonzalez. How do you deny the rules of evidence and then complain that you’re “not allowed to do science”? Sorry, science isn’t a mosh pit, in which anyone can just go slamming into everyone and everything as your “research.”
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Creationist in science settings tend not to be open. The parrot the right answers for the grades. I know a young earth creationist how got a graduate degree from a systematics lab, simply by doing enough work and saying the right things at the right time.
That reminds me of that one guy who insinuates himself into getting a PhD by posing as a person interested in evolutionary science only to fly off his mask and reveal his true colors as a slanderous creationist who then attacks what he wrote down about Mosasaurs in his college papers the moment he gets his PhD.
Hi,
Just wanted to drop a note from my own experience. I used to work in government. I had a supervisor that detested the satanist evil of secular government. So, he became a fifth columnist, working to destroy the great satan from within. You could pick his chosen enforcement levels based solely on the stated religion of the violator. No, he wasn’t respected. Kinda the same as the bushies about to hide in the civil service once the D is elected.
One of my favorite “subversive within the system” stories was told by scientist Lucy Hall. Instead of being another “creationist tries to get biology degree” situation, this one is “New Ager tries to get chemistry degree.” She writes:
My plan of attack was pure and simple: subversion. And I planned this subversion very craftily, at least for a thirteen-year-old. Along with my desire to save the world through such Higher Truths, I also wanted to save the world by becoming a doctor. Except I was going to be a real doctor. I’d look like an ordinary doctor on the outside because I’d go to medical school and take all those narrow-minded, materialistic, rigid, uncaring, unenlightened, and unpleasant medical science classes. But inside, I would be an expert in the real ways of healing, open-minded, organic, spiritual, human, enlightened, empowering, and infinitely better. I was sure the blandishments of the Establishment wouldn’t affect me, since I knew the Truth, and couldn’t possibly fall for any materialistic lies. And, once I had a conventional MD degree under my belt as camouflage, I could attack the bastions of materialistic medicine directly from within, and subvert it for its own good in spite of itself.
Seeing as Ms. Hall is at a website called “Godless Science” — and the talk is titled “Why I Am Not a New Ager” — that clearly didn’t happen.
You can read the rest of it at:
http://www.godless.org/sci/whynot2.html
It’s like taking a job as a stockbroker and denouncing capitalism and refusing to make a profit.
So you and me had the same broker, huh? Oh well, I hope you got out of it better off than me.
Okay, I’ve picked up a copy of Abraham’s complaint in the Federal District court and the following are the crucial factual allegations:
The big “ifs” (and a very big “ifs” they are) these facts would seem to turn on are whether he was actually doing satisfactory work before it was learned he denied evolution, either because he was able to separate his beliefs from his work or because his work really doesn’t involve theory, and whether, after it was learned he denied evolution, there was some sort of reasonable accomodation that could have been made for his religion.
If so, the lab could be in trouble on this. I tend to think not because the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (probably pretty liberal on the subject of religious freedom) found there was a “lack of probable cause” (a pretty low standard of evidence) that discrimination had taken place.
[sarcasm on]Cool, where can I find a job as an associate professor without a single publication. I do have a bunch, so should I aim for a full professorship immediately?[sarcasm off]
Serious, I am happy to get an assistant professorship somewhere in the coming years.
Sure the lab could possibly be in trouble if the plaintiff is telling the truth, but the defendant wrote this to him:
If he is telling the truth, he almost certainly has cause to dismiss him. There are a whole lot of questions raised even by plaintiff’s point #20:
Just what, according to the plaintiff, would “warrant” the use of evolutionary concepts? For many of them, the warrant would have to be within the region of “microevolution,” an amorphous concept changing from creationist to creationist (mainly because it is based upon no evidence, once it has left the traditional definition), and in denial of “macroevolution.”
Unless he was willing to work within the traditional evolutionary framework of biology (which he did not claim to be willing to do in his complaint), his chance of winning would be slim. After all, that is what he was, in part, hired to do.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
How does this guy not know a well vetted theory is pretty much as solid as it gets? How can he be a scientist?
Sincerely held huh?
Glen D #75 makes a good point. I daresay PZ himself would be happy to agree that he will analyze aspects of his research using Intelligent Design concepts if warranted. Hell, he’d probably analyze aspects of his research using astrological, alchemical, and VooDoo concepts — again, on the stipulation that they are warranted. I mean, really warranted.
If they’ve got a warrant, you have to let them in.
Kim van der Linde @ 13–
There’s a reason people in Ohio occasionally joke about “Kent read, Kent write, Kent State.” ;)
What a stupid idiot. They should counter-sue this moron for perjury and misrepresentation. Obviously, his idiotic creationist belief was going to run counter to the biological implications of his research, and in fact, the whole grant itself. If I was underwriting that grant proposal, and spent all that time and effort, hired post-docs, and ended up with this asshead, then he’s lucky if he would have just been fired. He would have been severely beaten up, ground into a fine pink powder, and used in a variety of applications (a la Futurama, Bender’s Big Score).
Okay, before there are any flames or whatnot, I’m going to be trying to analyze this as a lawyer would go about assessing the potential merits and pitfalls of the suit. The following does not any reflect my personal views (which I wouldn’t form based on the scant evidence so far anyway).
The complaint that:
… is not necessarily a defense because an obvious “reasonable accommodation” would then be to leave Abraham’s name off any such publications. I assume that might raise some eyebrows in the scientific community but the standard doesn’t permit the employer to demand no adverse effect whatsoever. The employer must make reasonable accommodation.
The “if warranted” sounds to me like lawyer’s talk for “if required”. Clearly, if he imposes restrictions on what science he will do in his work, his case is greatly damaged, if not made untenable.
Wishful thinking that you could likewise get a job in a church, preach that it’s all mythical, get fired, then sue them. Congress has made religious organizations a protected class in that they can fire at will anyone who does not adhere to their beliefs, with impunity mind you as well as no penalty. They’re not subject to EEOC and all those other laws that help use other folks. That’s why these creationist/dufuses can sue ’cause they DO fall under the EEOC, or they claim they do. That’s what happened in the Sternberg/Smithsonian case & what’s happening at ISU w/ Gonzalez.
Yes, but working with the little that we know, there appears to be little hope for “reasonable accommodation”:
How could one be hired for a project involving evolution, and then expect to be given “reasonable accommodation” not to work within the evolutionary framework? Again, this is just going by the “reported facts”. Given these “facts”, what would he be doing, keyboarding, sweeping floors, watching the others do biology using its central theory?
I just don’t see anywhere for him to be doing his job if he denies the centrality of evolution to the study of zebrafish development. Are there any suggested remedies from the plaintiff that we don’t know about, and if so, are they actually “reasonable”?
I would note that the commission dismissed his complaint, and we lack cause to think that they did so lightly or without good reason. They can be wrong, of course, which is why he has the opportunity to turn to the courts, but for now I have to think that they didn’t see much in the way of “reasonable accommodation” for a guy hired to work in evolutionary biology who appears unwilling to fully use evolutionary biology in his research.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
To #7:
AMEN!
I should have written “accommodations” instead of “remedies,” considering the legal nature of this matter, since the legal meaning of “remedy” does not carry the meaning that I wished to convey. Not that I am unlikely to get other legal terms wrong, I just thought I’d correct this one.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
John Pieret @ 80 writes:
Under Title VII case law, though, the employer must only make a de minimis accommodation, not a reasonable accommodation (as the employer must under the Americans with Disabilities Act, for example). In the legal field, leaving someone’s name off would almost certainly be seen as nothing more than a de minimis accommodation–after all, law clerks routinely write drafts of opinions that judges make only minor alterations to and then take credit for, and research assistants do all kinds of work for law professors, only to find themselves thanked in footnotes of law review articles (if at all).
In the world of science, though, such an accommodation is probably more than merely de minimis, since the standard is to have everyone who was deeply involved in an experiment be a co-author of a paper. (At least that’s what it was when I was a physics undergrad working in a lab.) Leaving off the name of a postdoc who did work integral to the experiment is a sizable departure from the field’s standard, and thus probably more than a de minimis accommodation, meaning it’s one that Woods Hole wouldn’t have to take.
(Of course, this is all based on my one semester of Employment Law. Real-life mileage may vary.)
How about this bit of speculation on Mr Abraham; he gets his PhD in biology, finds Jesus, repents of the evils of Darwinism and then finds he needs a job. BS’s his way into a job at Woods Hole, finds out he cant hack it. Announces he is a creationist so he can try the religious discrimination lawsuit and get and easy job at Liberty U teaching religious morons.
That’s a LEGAL argument, not one he believes himself. He knows damn well…it’s chaff trying to confuse the onlookers and the legal system.
But that raises the question of how Hahn could have gone something like 7 months without learning about Abraham’s beliefs (and then in a casual conversation) if they were so central to the job. He worked all that time without it coming up, apparently.
Yes, I pointed out that as well and included the fact that the standard was “probable cause,” a very low evidentiary standard. But there are always possibilities for why that determination was wrong or applied a different statute or whatever.
Nobody uses the phrase “a philosophy doctorate” to mean a Ph.D. in general
Some of us furriners do.
Glen,
when I read this paragraph of the article :
“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.”
And thereafter read the claims of Plaintiff (your post #73),
I understand that it is Defendant who claims that “the project clearly required scientists to use the principles of evolution in their analyses and writing.”
You say : “How could one be hired for a project involving evolution…”
Apparently, Plaintiff did not consider that he was being hired for a project that clearly required evolution, and has shown that he was willing to analyze aspects of his research using evolutionary concepts if warranted (as Defendant Hahn himself done in his previous publications).
If Plaintiff can substantiate his claim #17, and clearly show that things when wrong after he had “mentioned he was Christian and that his faith proscribes his personal acceptance and belief in the theory of evolution as scientific fact, then I think he has a case.
Stevie_C @ 28: “Jesus supposedly said he was the son of god.”
Off-topic for this thread, but Jesus referred to himself as “the Son of Man”. While he addressed God as “Father”, he taught his followers to address God as “Our Father, who art in Heaven…”, which doesn’t sound like an exclusive claim to be the (one and only) son of God.
Les Lane @ 62: “Being fired for believing in evolution must look very good on CVs at Liberty.”
I think you mean “Being fired for not believing in evolution….”
That’s right the fictional Jesus, liked to hedge his bets.
Wow, this was really cool to read. Its like I found a secret reservoir of scientists all pissed off at a wolf in sheep’s clothing who’s been hiding amongst them.
Bravo.
WWJD?
Jesus would kick over the tables at Liberty University and yell “You have turned my Father’s house into a den of sin”. Jesus never claimed to be a young earth creationist. He admired the teachings of Abraham and Isaiah and Moses.
Wise men have lived and have had great influence over culture and society, but I think some crazy Christians have taken some good quotes and turned it into a pile of crazy talk.
If there is actually a serious under minding of scientific work because unqualified or incompatible science majors are getting hired into spots that progressive scientists could otherwise fill with more productivity, well, that would suck.
Got that the wrong way around Joe, its a sheep trying to pretend to be a wolf, then getting huffy when one of the pack had to audacity to gnaw on an ankle. Remember, they are the ones that think being a sheep is a virtue. ;)
I guess you’re right, critical peer review seems to be more wolf like than sheep like.
The thing is, I know from personal connections that it is possible for someone to compartmentalize wacko religious beliefs and a scientific career. I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before, but a friend’s father is a 7th Day, which is as full on magical world view YEC as it gets, and a prominent research physician tracking molecular-level genetic disorders, which requires using models based on evolution (or so I expect). I have no idea how he does both and neither does his son.
Mr Abraham is clearly lacking in the compartmentalization department.
I was informed in conversation the other day of an interesting take on the Big Bang theory, which I think can be made applicable to your beliefs, Mr. Meyers.
It was made apparent to me that, because the Big Bang theory necessitates a tiny, super-dense ball of static energy, existing within a structured nothingness (duh), according to any experiment modern scientists are able to facilitate, such a superb discharge of energy as would have created the universe would be impossible without the existence of a ‘higher power’. That is to say that, because static energy cannot discharge without a catalyst or trigger, whether that be ‘God’ or a speck of super-dimensional lint, the Big Bang Theory, as it has been popularized, is invalid, and, simply, impossible.
NOW, I am not now, nor will I ever be, a scientist. Frankly the thought of further structured study in the subject could not be less desirable to me. That said, my desire to study science is on a par with my desire to further study ANY religion. Fuck ’em all. However, I do like to stay informed, and this conversation got me to thinking.
The known Laws of Physics, like the Big Bang Theory, Evolutionary Theory, and even my beloved M-Theory, are, to the best of my knowledge, THEORETICAL. Further, any system whose proof is based in mathematics can never be truly concrete, because math itself is a theoretical system based on the mutually quantified understanding of shared experiences across a species. THEREFORE, scientific reasoning is cyclical, and, at best, on a par with religious reasoning, which is so often criticized for employing cyclical logic. Perhaps creationist cyclicism is a bit more blatant, but, by virtue of common nature, is no less worthy than the reasoning of our best scientists.
THUSLY, I ask you, WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I CARE? Existentialism is far beyond bogus, my eyes might bleed to think of the pointlessness its seekers’ lives are relegated to. Why should I drive myself insane?
Yours,
A Dirty, Shoeless Neo-Hippie
ps – I’m not an athiest, I just have better things to think about.
A Creationist probably feels that Evolution is just philosophical postion, so he would expect to be able employ rhetorical arguments and have people nod tolerantly at them. So maybe he didn’t expect to consider in detail the evolutionary implications of his work.
It must be possible to do some biology without recourse to evolutionary theory – say if one were simply gathering facts about plant growth or species distribution over time and presenting them simply as new data with only physiological explanations?
Ah, you DID see the article.
I was working today, didn’t see it until just a few minutes ago. Glad you’re on it.
I wonder if he’d spare his lawyers to represent Chris Comer against the Texas Education Commissioner . . .
@Tishoo, #97: kindly turn off your computer and cease using the internet. Since the World Wide Web is a spin-off from CERN, the whole thing is obviously theoretical and you shouldn’t waste your time on it.
uh huh…
But they couldn’t just “leave his name off of the paper”, because one would assume that part of his job duties would be to write the paper. That’s not a reasonable accommodation to let him off of a large chunk of duties, and he was told that an evolutionary analysis would be a big part of the project. It would be as if I hired someone to write a comprehensive textbook on feline phylogeny, and then halfway through the person said that they were going to leave out tigers because they didn’t believe in them. Ok, but I’m not paying you to write the book, then.
THEREFORE, scientific reasoning is cyclical, and, at best, on a par with religious reasoning, which is so often criticized for employing cyclical logic.
LOGIC
You’re doing it wrong.
Abraham’s case was assigned to Judge Reginald Lindsay. If you care to try to read the tea leaves, here’s the only biographical information I could find on him:
Lindsay, Reginald C.
Born 1945 in Birmingham, AL
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
Nominated by William J. Clinton on October 27, 1993, to a seat vacated by David Sutherland Nelson; Confirmed by the Senate on November 20, 1993, and received commission on November 24, 1993.
Education:
Morehouse College, B.A., 1967
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1970
Professional Career:
Private practice, Boston, Massachusetts, 1970-1975
State commissioner of public utilities, Massachusetts, 1975-1977
Private practice, Boston, Massachusetts, 1977-1993
Race or Ethnicity: African American
Gender: Male
I hope the judge orders an Amok style death match between Abraham and the guy who hired him. Nerds swinging those crazy Star Trek axe/pole vault/meat cleaver weapons is almost worth minting tickets for.
And that ree ree ree music, uber.
No it’s not. None of the competing scientific models of the universe’s origins present a serious challenge to a nontheistic worldview, unless one stipulates that the universe’s operations must be confined by the imagination of yet another pretentious pissant who apparently thinks we’ve never encountered this stupid line of argument before. Neither is the Big Bang relevant to evolutionary biology, except in the most tangential sense.
Have you considered that this is logically equivalent to stating that bumblebees cannot fly because you have a set of calculations showing that their wings can’t generate enough lift?
Don’t. It’s worse than that. It’s logically equivalent to stating that bumblebees cannot fly because you don’t see how those tiny wings can lift that big body, without doing even one step of one calculation.
Anyone who mistakes you for someone with a point, however, might be interested in reading about what big bang theory as understood by people who know what they’re talking about actually predicts.
So I see.
This much is also obvious.
I would suggest using a condom if you’re going to be fucking religions. Who knows what you’d catch?
You’ve already demonstrated that your knowledge of physics is at a level on a par with a hypothetical Deepak Chopra children’s picture book, and declared your disinterest in changing that. Informed of what, exactly?
I know you said you have no desire to learn any more science, but you might do well to inform yourself of what the term “theory” actually means to scientists. The following source has a good explanation.
This. Does. Not. Follow. All scientific conclusions are provisional, which means they could be disproved if the right counter-evidence were found. This does not mean that scientific conclusions should be rejected, any more than “well, what if space aliens planted all the evidence?” should result in a dismissal of an otherwise airtight court case. I suggest you read up on the concept of “reasonable doubt”, as it’s very applicable.
“Cyclical logic” is a new criticism of creationist arguments to me. As I understand it, it’s normally criticized for failing to produce either testable predictions or supporting evidence, for failing to adhere to scientific standards of honesty and integrity, and for attempting to use force to accomplish what it cannot through weight of evidence. You know, the things that are expected of an actual scientific theory.
Wrong, for the reasons cited above.
Because you’re smarter than a….
Ok, good point.
Existentialism as the term is understood by people who have any familiarity whatsoever with it does not render “pointless” the life of anyone except those too weak-minded and weak-willed to create a purpose for themselves rather than being spoon-fed one. By the way, what the fuck does either this fact or existentialism in general have to do with your previous statements?
Because you’re almost there and it would be a shame to quit now?
No, you’re not. You’re dirty, but you’re not shoeless. In fact, you’re wearing one red high heel pump and one brown hiking boot, on your left and right feet respectively. Furthmore, you’re not Neo nor a Hippie. And in fact, you’re blond, have a bad mustache and a mullet, and are wearing a plaid overshirt right now. And don’t bother to deny it, because I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU and I’m making a point about the jaw-dropping arrogance of people who make imperious pronouncements about things they’re only vaguely acquainted with, yet about which they’re apparently convinced they’re more knowledgeable than people who, you know, have actually studied them.
Apparently not.
Sven,
not my words, originally. will employ quotation marks next time. thanks.
Stephen,
Touche.
Carlie,
precisely why am I ‘doing it wrong’? because you don’t agree with me? that’s all well and good, but you’ll have to present some more tangibile arguement if you expect to change my mind. Way to beat a dead horse from last week, though.
Yes, I realize arguments are impossible to make ‘tangible’ by pedantic use of the word. Yes, I realize that I spelled ‘arguement’ two different ways…one of them has got to be right.
To all of you,
My intention is not to antagonize you. I see science as a religion unto itself, and, because of that, alot of what Meyers says comes off ridiculous in two extremes: that of religious stupidity, and that of scientific stupidity. When you get right down to it, we don’t ‘know’ anything, and to pretend we do does us no good at all, particularly when we assume that what we think we know is fact, despite it’s most fundamental definition. Theory is theory, plain and simple. It’s fine to go on trying to prove your theory through furthering your research, but researching arbitrarily, using theory as fact, is a rabbit hole. Why are we even studying zebrafish? Can anyone tell me that? Why are we not instead studying cancer more throroughly, or formulating a second cure for AIDS? Science for the sake of science simply makes no sense to me. And I believe I already pointed out that I am no scientist. I write. That’s what I do. I put two and two together, and I ask, “Does anyone else see the connection here?” Hence, I finished my last post in a question, not a statement. My intention is not to antagonize you. It is to be educated by you on subjects you may or may not have considered before. To pow wow, rather than kow tow. I think I did sign my last, “Dirty, Shoeless Neo-Hippie”…how am I not being honest in that?
If you are so keen to impress you ideas and opinions on me, why don’t you state them explicitly, that I might be a receptacle for your superior insights, as a flower to the morning dew? 9_9
azkyroth, i rescind my last. It did not go through before I read your comment, and thank you. At least at that, you’ve given me more to go on than the others. I can only deal with what I know. I said that I’ve no interest in further ‘structured’ study of science, but that does not mean I’ve no interest in learning. I’ve no use for a PhD in any science. While you’ve not really presented any evidence either, I’d like to point out that I a)heard the basis for that first comment in a conversation, and was bemused at the thought of having someone else’s opinion on it. b)None of what I said was stated as fact, so I really don’t think it fair to call me “yet another pretentious pissant”, but you do as you will. I don’t particularly understand why you have to insult me, but you did a rather poor job of it, so whatev. continuing to insult me will do you less good however, considering my thoughts on man’s being doomed to be right. No, since you’re going to berate me for it, I don’t consider that license to spew nonsense, but I don’t consider it reason to accept what you say for fact, either. Rip me up, tear me down, get creative and tell me to go away. I’m just curious. Since when is that a bad thing? Frankly, I wouldn’t have thrown today’s blog a second glance after that first post, if another article hadn’t reminded me of it. It’s kind of amusing to see how badly you thrash anyone who’s not thoroughly versed in your field.
Also, my questions were, I believe, originally posed to Mr. Meyers. Frankly, I just kind of wanted his opinion on my brand of what you call ‘non-theism’, of which I’m unclear on the difference between that and atheism. See, he spends all his time fighting the theists. I just ignore them. Really, I’m positively fucking CERTAIN you knew about that Big Bang deal before me. You seek it out. I think we’ve covered my stance on that.
I’m sure you wish I’d shut up, but I do apologize for posting rather slowly. I’m at work.
It’s even stronger than that–when I approached a genomicist* at the UW, not to work on an existing post-doc, but rather to roll my own by following up on some aspects of the current sun bear reproduction project, he gave me some of the best advice I’ve received as a grad student: he turned me down, because he thinks the problem may be too hard to make significant progress on in a 1- or 2-year post-doc.
He considered that I was at risk for coming out of a post-doc with him with no significant publications to show for it, and that would not only be bad for the time I had spent, but–worse–it would damage me for future positions. To spend that time on a post-doc and not come out of it with publications would be to be worse off than when I had entered. He’s very sympathetic to the endangered-species aspect of the work, and he’ll supervise a project; he just won’t supervise a post-doc stint out of which the post-doc leaves perceived as damaged goods.
In other words, leaving Abraham off of pubs would damage him for future positions, in a way which may or may not be actionable (IANAL), but which is certainly understood clearly in the academic community. Proposing or consenting to such an arrangement would be a huge red flag for everyone involved.
* Name withheld simply because I never asked him if he minded my telling the story; I certainly think it puts him in a very good light wrt mentoring.
PZ, I know I’m going to get raked over the coals on this one, being how classes for you will soon be over and you’ll have nothing else to do than complain to the non-heavens about the sorry state of basic science understanding of doctors, but Darwin described processes that lead to speciation. Supplicating myself humbly before you, I ask with great trepidation, how can we say that speciation is not the result of selection and is instead due more fully to non-Darwinian processes? Sympatric and allopatric speciation were concepts not completely foreign to Darwin, were they? Write you of drift here, perhaps? And if so, how is it that selection does not play a prominent role after drift has done its work?
In full expectation of having your minions sicced upon me in punishment for my abject ignorance of a subject so obviously central to our mutual efforts and obvious to even the most pedestrian of decently-trained biologists…
BCH
Then don’t arrogantly presume to know more than people who’ve studied the matter simply because of what looks like about 5 minutes of armchair philosophizing on your part.
There’s your problem. Begging the question is a very tried-and-true way of fucking up arguments right out of the gate.
More specifically, if you actuallythink that the “unprovable assumptions” of science, such as “there is a world external to our minds”; “our senses, while imperfect, tell us something useful about this world”; and “patterns that are observed to be consistent tend to remain consistent unless conditions change” (these are the same “unprovable assumptions” that you make when you set foot outside your residence in the morning assuming you aren’t going to just go flying off the surface of the earth for no reason, so if they’re unreasonable the entirety of human life is unreasonable); are comparable to the assumptions of religion about things that cannot be seen, leave no evidence, and defy logic, then you cannot expect to be taken seriously.
So much for not intending to antagonize people.
The fact that knowledge is technically provisional does not mean that we should simply be paralyzed. If you wake up in the middle of the night to your smoke detector squealing, smell smoke, and look out into the hallway and see orange flames, it’s possible that this might be an illusion, a hallucination, or a practical joke, but does that mean you’re not going to call the fire department? Yet by your bizarre set of assumptions, you don’t “know” there’s a fire, so you shouldn’t “assume it as fact.” Science is simply a more formal and rigorous way of doing this with things that are often less obvious than a fire, with a focus on “why” questions as well as “what.” As to why people have been annoyed with you, you might consider the smarminess of your tone and the fact that this line of argument has been debunked many, many many times.
Wrong. “Theory” as understood by scientists is not “theory” as you seem to consider it.
So what do you suggest as an alternative, especially considering that calling the fire department in the above example, “using theory as fact”, is just as much of a rabbit hole?
…are you perhaps under the impression that the real world operates like a turn-based strategy game where a side’s entire scientific capability can only be focused on one subject at a time?
That is unfortunate. I can’t imagine what it would be like to actually be uninterested in learning, to be utterly lacking in curiosity and wonder. I find your previous commentary about “pointless” lives ironic.
Yet you arrogantly presume to know science better than those who are. Will you make up your mind?
According to your standards above, this is a rabbit hole.
Your tone is very much antagonistic, and you absolutely do not present yourself here as someone willing or prepared to learn anything. The pervasive tone of a message speaks louder than the small-print disclaimer at the end – especially when coupled to a claim of disinterest in learning at the beginning. At the very least, if you are actually interested in learning about the subject at hand, you might try asking questions instead of making imperious pronouncements, or better yet, reading up on it in your own time rather than expecting people who do this for a living to spoon-feed it to you so that you have some meaningful idea of what is already known and what questions you still need to ask.
Burt, PZ’s statement is a bit too strong – many biologists would say that selection can be an important cause of speciation (although not the sole cause). See for example:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060224090021.htm
So what you’re saying is, not only do you not understand science, the theories you criticize, or even what a theory is — you also don’t understand math.
I always like to tell my students that if we encounter aliens, they’ll certainly be familiar with pi, and will probably also know e (but they won’t use base 10, so this is why we should use ln instead of the common log).
If you show up arrogantly trumpeting your strongly-held belief that all of someone’s field is crap (even better — all of science), yet reveal yourself to be all but ignorant of that field, you deserve a thrashing. I believe the technical term for what you’ve done is “talking out of your ass.”
Sheesh, I should try to get these all in one post, but I just keep finding more that I can’t ignore.
Somewhere along the way, people started using this cheap rhetorical trick of interpreting “I know X” to mean “I am certain of X.” “Justified true belief” is (roughly) the correct meaning of “knowledge” in almost all contexts. I know lots of things, though I’m not 100% certain of anything.
It’s like wanting to work as a pharmacist but saying you can’t fill certain prescriptions, as properly prescribed by doctors.
In other words, completely reasonable, of course. Right?
i am sorry that you take my tone that way. i didn’t ask you anything. i didn’t ask to be educated on anything until you bitched at me for not knowing it. i find it interesting that, knowing myself, i had no arrogance about myself in writing, though i do, as a character flaw, have a pronounced brazen streak, but you seem to be as arrogant as ever i was. why do you expect me to listen to someone who comes off so intensely elitist? if this is meant to be a private, laureate-only forum, why’s it public, and why don’t you just ask me to go away? i came seeking an opinion, nothing more. thanks for yours.
someone more eloquent than I (and I call myself a writer…tsk tsk) abrieviated this post thusly,
“we often percieve in others what we cannot face in ourselves.”
I may not be a scientist, but I do have some knowledge of psychology. If you’re going to be an ass, you might at least veil it in some kind of justification, rather than constantly proclaiming that you know what you know. That is the only reason I ever asked you to explain anything to me.
I am not constantly paralyzed, but thank you for making obvious your tendency to assume. I deal with what I can in the present, to the end of a better future, and I do not overextend myself into the realm of what I cannot. I have goals.
Also, I have tits, and am wearing suitpants…no mustache, no mullet, no plaid. But then, what’s our percieved reality to your imperius stereotype? Don’t you think philosophers know how ridiculous they are?
I am not to weak for existentialism, I just got tired of dead-ends, and decided I’d rather dwell in them, than on them.
Guys, tishoo is intentionally trolling. (S)He doesn’t even believe the garbage that (s)he’s typing. (S)He’s intentionally switching between capitalization and non-capitalization, and intentionally misspelling PZ’s last name, just to see how far (s)he can yank people’s chains.
Further responses are unnecessary. (S)He is not here to learn anything, (s)he is just having the kind of fun trolls have.
“So what you’re saying is, not only do you not understand science, the theories you criticize, or even what a theory is — you also don’t understand math.”
i never criticized any theory, but since you seem to want me to criticie SOMETHING so badly: I’ve yet to see the point of geology. Have fun with that one.
Perhaps my understanding of the definition of the word ‘theory’ is more common than yours (read: less scientific), and, in that case, you have a valid point. I do remember the definition as I read it, but feel no need to post it, as that would be justifying myself to greater degree than you have yourself, and such an act would give you a percieved upper hand in what, truly, is none of your concern in the first place.
Should aliens descend from on high with full knowledge of Pi and e, I would have no problem with revamping my knowledge of math, mathematical theory, and the definitions thereof. Since, however, the aliens haven’t scooped you into their like-minded arms yet, I’ve no reason to study outside of my piddly Calculus and Statistics. You, being apparently a mathematician and lover of numbers, have fun with that.
“Somewhere along the way, people started using this cheap rhetorical trick of interpreting “I know X” to mean “I am certain of X.” “Justified true belief” is (roughly) the correct meaning of “knowledge” in almost all contexts. I know lots of things, though I’m not 100% certain of anything.”
I see your point, but you’ll have to define ‘true’ without using the word ‘know’ before I’ll agree with you. Tentatively, of course.
I see your point, but you’ll have to define ‘true’ without using the word ‘know’ before I’ll agree with you.
Apparently you lack both a dictionary and a brain. For something to be true doesn’t depend on its being known, and so of course “true” is not defined in terms of “know”.
“Guys, tishoo is intentionally trolling. (S)He doesn’t even believe the garbage that (s)he’s typing. (S)He’s intentionally switching between capitalization and non-capitalization, and intentionally misspelling PZ’s last name, just to see how far (s)he can yank people’s chains.
Further responses are unnecessary. (S)He is not here to learn anything, (s)he is just having the kind of fun trolls have.”
ROFL!! Sadly enough, you couldn’t be further from the truth, but I was wondering how long it would take someone to point out my typos. Now, when I told the theosophist to off herself, THAT was trolling. Ignore the bully. g’head.
I’d still like to have PZ’s (since I’m not going to scroll up and find the exact spelling simply to go further out of my way to attempt a display of respect which noone else seems accustomed to) opinion on my initial question, if he’d be inclined to give it.
Why should I take up the cause of the militant atheist?
Am I glad I’m going to be a Dr. rer. nat. and not a Dr. phil..
And geologist hammers! :-)
Am I glad I’m going to be a Dr. rer. nat. and not a Dr. phil..
And geologist hammers! :-)
just to be a raging bitch:
TRUE /tru/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[troo] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, tru·er, tru·est, noun, adverb, verb, trued, tru·ing or true·ing.
-adjective 1. being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or FACT; not false: a true story.
FACT /fækt/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something KNOWN to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
KNOW1 /noʊ/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[noh] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation verb, knew, known, know·ing, noun
-verb (used with object) 1. to perceive or understand as FACT or TRUTH; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
you’re right. it’s 2 degrees of separation, not one. oh, my fragile sensibilities.
“speciation is almost certainly not a product of selection, as the passage implies, but of other, literally non-Darwinian processes.”
you got me confused.
Is the loss of a land bridge, for instance, a result of Darwinian or non-Darwinian processes?
You shouldn’t, and we’d rather you didn’t. We have standards.
As for you initial silliness, telling us that you heard from some anonymous and presumably thoroughly unqualified source an entirely bogus interpretation of Big Bang theory that fits your ignorant prejudices but does not fit what physics knows of it, does not impose on us any cause to take you seriously.
Now you can quit whining for my attention — you got more of it than you deserve, and I’ll be ignoring you from now on.
Oh man.
– Oil. In other words, cold hard cash.
– Water.
– Minerals on end.
– Understanding earthquakes, volcanism, tsunamis.
The evidence clearly suggests you are in fact a troll. Please do try to disprove this little hypothesis of mine.
Oh man.
– Oil. In other words, cold hard cash.
– Water.
– Minerals on end.
– Understanding earthquakes, volcanism, tsunamis.
The evidence clearly suggests you are in fact a troll. Please do try to disprove this little hypothesis of mine.
On the whole “militant atheist” nonsense, the proper response is “wake me up when […] Christopher Hitchens, drunk of course, throws a bomb into a church.”
If you’re still here in 10 to 12 hours, tishoo, and have provided some evidence that you aren’t a troll, I’ll reply to at length to all your posts. Now, however, it’s 4 am over here, so I prefer going to bed.
On the whole “militant atheist” nonsense, the proper response is “wake me up when […] Christopher Hitchens, drunk of course, throws a bomb into a church.”
If you’re still here in 10 to 12 hours, tishoo, and have provided some evidence that you aren’t a troll, I’ll reply to at length to all your posts. Now, however, it’s 4 am over here, so I prefer going to bed.
just to be a raging bitch
You mean just to be a stupid fucking moron. You asked for a definition of “true” that doesn’t use “know”, and the dictionary entry for “true”, together with the first definition of “fact” provides one. The second definition of “fact” follows from what Davis said of “know”, that it implies that what is known is true. The inverse obviously does not follow — there are many things that are true but are not known.
As for why the fuck you should care … why the fuck should we care whether you care, especially when you’re too stupid to spell correctly the name of the blogger on whose blog you’re posting?
thalarctos:
Well, the defense that “I fired him for his own good” has the advantage of surprise, at least. ;-)
To make Davis’s point while avoiding tishoo’s stupid dodge: knowledge is justified belief that is in accordance with the actual state or conditions. Since we don’t have direct access to what is the actual state of things, we can never be certain that our justified beliefs are knowledge, even when they are. (Actually, this isn’t quite true. We do have direct access to our own feelings, so we can be certain that, for instance, we are in pain, because being in pain is precisely a matter of having a certain sort of feeling.)
ah, satisfaction. do have fun floundering in iniquity. ta.
The damnedest thing about conventionalism in mathematics is that it’s a difficult position to arrive at through thought and consideration but, once you get there, it’s the most rewarding and explanatory of them all. But, despite the fact that it takes hard work to get there, it’s also the default position for anti-intellectualist post-modernist wankers like tishoo.
If tishoo’s conventionalism is challenged by the independent co-invention or co-discovery of various parts of mathematics, he/she/it need not wait for the aliens to renounce that position since the independent co-invention or co-discovery of theorems, methods, and whole areas of study is a recurring theme throughout the history of mathematics. Different cultures have produced similar mathematics. So begone, tishoo! I have a hard enough time selling my conventionalist wares to other mathematicians without having them covered in the half-cocked pontification of a pomo wanker.
I am a little surprised that more people haven’t taken the line of argument that a positive assertion in science is always meant to be taken as a hypothesis (one which is, of course, falsifiable), and statements of fact are meant not to be taken as broad assertions that “thing Y always has property X” but rather that “property X is represented in this sample population of Y with the following distribution”. Of course falsificationism and the applicability of statistics have a certain requirement of metaphysics — the world must be stable enough for experiments to be performed. But that requirement is thankfully satisfied by the cognitive systemicity of the world (which is always immediately conceded by the wanker upon, and indeed by, the initiation of an argument).
To put it another way, a guy named Hume went to see a doctor named Popper and said, “Dr. Popper, it hurts when I twist my arms behind my back and do a faceplant on the pavement!”
Popper said, “That’s a ridiculous thing to do, and of course it hurts! Stop doing it.”
It’s kind of amusing to see how badly you thrash anyone who’s not thoroughly versed in your field.
If you don’t want to be thrashed for saying profoundly stupid things about science and math, you’re in the wrong place.
do have fun floundering in iniquity. ta.
Count on the religious to be immensely arrogant.
statements of fact are meant not to be taken as broad assertions that “thing Y always has property X” but rather that “property X is represented in this sample population of Y with the following distribution”.
If that’s all we meant, we couldn’t make predictions.
To put it another way, a guy named Hume went to see a doctor named Popper and said, “Dr. Popper, it hurts when I twist my arms behind my back and do a faceplant on the pavement!”
Popper said, “That’s a ridiculous thing to do, and of course it hurts! Stop doing it.”
Hume is countered by Ockham. As David Deutsch explains well in “Fabric of Reality”, science is based on inference to the best explanation, not on induction. Of course the past doesn’t logically force the future, but we can do no better than to assume consistency.
For the record, I’m not a scientist either. This is why I listen, think critically, and ask for clarification when scientists explain concepts and findings in their fields, rather than presuming I know everything ahead of time, smarmily dismissing their work as useless, and simultaneously all but bragging of my ignorance.
Is it just coincidence, or was it purposely done by tishoo, that his/her posts have invoked the mental images of snot on a Kleenex?
Yes, you can make predictions, just not from raw statistics. You wouldn’t typically make an inference from statements like “property X is represented in this sample population of Y with the following distribution”, that would be the kind of ad hoc reasoning that’s responsible for the bad advice in whatever diet is all the rage these days. Predictions are the result of a theoretical model, and that’s almost a matter of definition since we demand novelty of our models. If a prediction does come from some set of data, it’s really only indirectly since there’s an intermediate step of constructing a theory or hypothesis to explain the data.
Best with respect to what? If you mean best with respect to the experiments, then we’re talking about the same thing. If you’re talking about best with respect to Ockham’s razor, that’s simply a maxim and a value judgment. It usually works, but there isn’t any reason that it must.
I basically grew up at WHOI, and the rumblings I’m hearing are that 1) this dude misrepresented himself to at least some degree in the process of getting the job, and 2) WHOI isn’t the least bit worried about his ridiculous lawsuit.
“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.”
To pick an analogy near and dear to the hearts of the American right, it’s like a Muslim taxi-driver refusing to transport guide dogs or unaccompanied women.
Speaking as an attorney with baccalaureate degrees in Biology & Chemistry along with a M.S. (master’s only program) in Endocrine Physiology – I know a little about the legal side of this matter. The lawsuit will be dismissed – either at the start of the case because he fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or it will be tossed out at the summary judgment phase.
What nobody has mentioned yet is that Nathaniel Abraham lied on his application and admits that he is unqualified to perform the postdoctoral work because of his “religious bias.” He was an employee of WHOI and employees have a duty of loyalty to the employer and here we have a material misstatement (a lie) in Abraham’s application and a failure to meet the duty of loyalty. Counter claims are rare in these cases, but were I counseling WHOI I’d strongly argue for filing the counterclaims and seeking indemnification for all costs and attorney’s fees and for the lost benefit to the lab caused by the false application.
A million dollar judgment (not very rare) against the twit would serve two purposes: (1) he would be too busy paying it off the rest of his life to come up with any more bright ideas like this one; and, (2) The precedent just might deter some other twit.
From one chordate to another…
You’re a lawyer, so you’ll have to tell me. Is that barratry, a SLAPP, an abuse of process, or something else? What’s the appropriate word for that kind of malicious abuse?
Dickhead.
Dustin: Since Abraham’s dishonesty seems to have had the effect (and possibly the intention) of wasting WHOI’s time and money, and taking payment under false pretenses, I’d think such a counteraction would be neither barratry nor abuse of process, and very clearly not a SLAPP.
Shorter gesundtheit!:
Don’t care much about biology
Don’t care much about geology
Don’t care much about science book
Don’t even care how dumb I look …
If Abraham was unable to perform his duties because of religious beliefs and believes that some accomidation is due him, his only recourse should be a lawsuit under the Disability Act. With all of the implications of his beliefs being a disability.
I apologize in advance, but I’ve just gotta know. Tishoo, What, pray tell, is the first cure for AIDS, as you seem to think all of the grant money in the world should be focused on a “second cure for AIDS”?
Why didn’t the first cure… you know… cure anyone?
Crap. This is probably one of the “immolate the immoral” jack-offs.
Oh, just to give you my CV, I also don’t have a degree in science. I have just enough knowledge to know, however, that you are a painfully ignorant douche-bag.
Since my supply of hypenated insults is exhausted, I’ll retire.
I would be mildly surprised if filing a frivolous lawsuit with the result of significant damage, either financially or in terms of reputation, to the defendant wasn’t in itself grounds for a countersuit.
Given that his actions are manifestly contrary to both the basic principles of professional, personal, and legal integrity and the clear intent of the laws he would cite in support of his case, why are you defending this slimebag?
this was really cool to read. Its like I found a secret reservoir of scientists all pissed off at a wolf in sheep’s clothing who’s been hiding amongst them.
Autumn, I would like to register one complaint for your consideration toward future comments, and perhaps even toward rephrasing #148.
Your hyphenated insults — “jack-off” and “douche-bag” — were completely inappropriate.
The first term literally describes something pleasurable; the second, something useful.
Clearly neither description or association fits where applied in #148.
There are so many more appropriate hyphenated terms — such as “head-ache” or “junk-heap”, to pick just two for example — wouldn’t you prefer to use them instead?
Dustin: To add to Azkyroth’s #149 — why aren’t you complaining about Nathaniel Abraham’s own abuse of process?
Here he’s trying to extract further money from a party he wronged, when by rights he should instead have returned the money they’d paid him.
At the very least, he should be made to repay that, plus their costs of defending themselves from his present action.
Was there a place on the application that asked if he believed in evolution? I’d be very surprised. And, of course, Abraham is specifically denying that he couldn’t do the work, even if it included evolutionary interpretations (see the excerpts of the complaint in #73).
As to frivolous lawsuits, there can be sanctions imposed (and the Federal courts are not overly shy about doing so) based on the costs incurred by the opponent. But it would be very unlikely to involve millions of dollars (think about it … if it’s so frivolous that sanctions are warranted, its going to be dismissed before that kind of money is spent in legal bills). A separate lawsuit for “malicious prosecution” could be brought that could include costs beyond legal bills, including, perhaps, loss of reputation or other less tangible damages. Its not very likely to result in millions of dollars, even if you convince a jury statistically likely to be made up of 80% of believers that they should give anything at all.
Simply amazing how soon these discussions devolve.
For those enlightened souls who live in the United States, if you could humor me to the extent of taking a count of both the authors of the Declaration of Independence and of the framers of the Constitution.
Please tell me how many were evil Creationists (aka Christian) and how many were sensible Evolutionists (aka athiests).
With whatever zeal you see just in mocking antiquities such as religion, please bury somewhere in the back of your huge, noble, all-encompassing minds that it was dolts not so unlike Abraham that granted you the very freedom with which you brandish thoughtlessly your hefty (and most indubitably correct) assertions of reality.
I only bother posting this because, after a while, the stench of swaggering atheism is almost indistinguishable from the stench of unbridled fundamentalism.
One day some of you will latch on to the concept that religion and science are both just books written by different authors. Believing either of the two requires faith in those who wrote it.
John Pieret @ 152:
“A separate lawsuit …”
Another (possibly better) option is a countering motion within the same case. Why duplicate the whole fact-finding process, when the same history would be at issue, and the only difference would be who’s asking for money from whom?
“… even if you convince a jury …”
Will there be a jury? Or only a judge? Has that been decided?
Johnson @ 153:
“… religion and science are both just books written by different authors. Believing either of the two requires faith in those who wrote it.”
Ah, that would be why hypotheses must be testable (“falsifiable”), experiments reproducible, papers peer-reviewed, and so forth?
Johnson @ 153:
“… if you could humor me to the extent of taking a count of both the authors of the Declaration of Independence and of the framers of the Constitution. Please tell me how many were evil Creationists (aka Christian) and how many were sensible Evolutionists (aka athiests).”
How does one cram so many fallacies into just two sentences?
For instance, Excluded Middle, as though the only choices were “Christian” and “atheist”. You omit the notable third option, Deists; see that link for direct quotes from Founding Fathers like Madison, Jefferson, and Adams. In any case, the Treaty of Tripoli (negotiated during George Washington’s administration, then by signed by John Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate, making it part of the Supreme Law of the US) stated officially that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”.
For another instance, False Equivalence, as in “Evolutionists (aka athiests)” — when notable Evolutionists including Darwin himself have been Christians.
And as for loaded words, “evil Creationists” — you’re mixing the questions of whether they were Creationists with whether they were evil. That lets us answer that none of them were “evil Creationists” — which doesn’t address how many of them were simply “Creationists”.
How many of the founding fathers were nuclear physicists?
Glider pilots? Welders?
My point being, there was no theory of evolution then. Most were creationists, however many, considered themselves “enlightened” and also natural philosphers. Several didn’t believe that Jesus other anything but a man.
They would consider all this religious pandering and devisivness repugnant.
My first thought was dogrose’s first thought, almost word for word. So, just, “ditto.”
“Please tell me how many were evil Creationists (aka Christian) and how many were sensible Evolutionists (aka athiests).”
In addition to the other factual and logical errors already pointed out:
“Creationist” and Christian are not interchangeable terms. There are non-Christian creationists (found amongst Jews, Hindus and Muslims for starters).
Neither are “evolutionist” and “atheist” since only a majority of Christians world-wide support Young Earth creationism. Deistic evolution (the idea that evolution occurred by that God somehow caused or guided it, is probably the most common position on this issue.)
And your separate books analogy only works if you thinks its acceptable for fans of the religion book to rip out pages from the Science book and paste in photocopies from their book in their place.
In one sense Deism is also “Creationist”, in that the Deists’ “God” was the “First Cause of the Universe” — started it up and then let it run without further intervention.
However, this has nothing to do with the jealous tribal God of the Bible, or with the “Creationist” story in Genesis of each species being separately created by additional acts of God after the start of the Universe, or with giving bookfulls of written or spoken Commandments, or with Christianity’s idea of Jesus being God incarnated.
Thomas Paine’s Of the Religion of Deism Compared with the Christian Religion, and The Age of Reason, are prominent examples of the Deist worldview.
So “Creationists (aka Christians)” is another False Equivalence.
No, but what else should we start from? Maximum munificence?
Besides, the cases where it doesn’t work do work when the number of testable and tested hypotheses about the data is increased: that’s why maximum likelihood is less sensitive to long-branch attraction than “maximum parsimony”.
No, but what else should we start from? Maximum munificence?
Besides, the cases where it doesn’t work do work when the number of testable and tested hypotheses about the data is increased: that’s why maximum likelihood is less sensitive to long-branch attraction than “maximum parsimony”.
Ian Gould @ 160: Wow, overlap!
“Deistic evolution”? Perhaps better would be “theistic evolution”, since Deists like Paine didn’t believe God intervened after the initial creation of the Universe.
Or would you have spelled “”deistic evolution” with a lower-case “d” if it hadn’t begun that sentence?
A majority??? Probably not even in the USA. In Europe, the only creationists are Jehovah’s Witnesses (and perhaps a few other tiny cults, I don’t know). I can’t imagine there are non-negligible numbers of creationists in the formerly communist countries. Latin America is predominantly Catholic, and Catholicism accepts the theory of evolution as the explanation for where the human body comes from (just not the soul).
Agreed, except that you mean theistic evolution. Deism is the idea that God created the universe and hasn’t done anything since.
A majority??? Probably not even in the USA. In Europe, the only creationists are Jehovah’s Witnesses (and perhaps a few other tiny cults, I don’t know). I can’t imagine there are non-negligible numbers of creationists in the formerly communist countries. Latin America is predominantly Catholic, and Catholicism accepts the theory of evolution as the explanation for where the human body comes from (just not the soul).
Agreed, except that you mean theistic evolution. Deism is the idea that God created the universe and hasn’t done anything since.
Pyre:
There would only be judge deciding a motion for sanctions for a frivolous lawsuit. If Woods Hole brought a separate action for malicious prosecution, the defendant would have the right to a jury.
Abraham has already demanded a jury in the Civil Rights case and would, therefore, have one for any counterclaim for malicious prosecution, if Woods Hole went that route.
Gee that is incredibly stupid. You must be a death cult creo.
1. Evolution does not equal atheist. One is a scientific fact with a well supported theory, the other an attitude towards the supernatural.
2. Darwin’s theory of the fact of evolution was written in 1859, long after the USA was founded. The founding fathers wouldn’t have known about it.
3. Many of the founders of this country were rather wary of religions. That is why they wrote separation into the constitution and the first amendment. Jefferson, Payne, Madison, Adams all had a healthy skepticism about the place of religion in government. This was because religion in Europe had caused the death in tens of millions in one way or another.
Bonus point. Who were among the first settlers in America and why did they come? The Pilgrims who fled England to avoid religious persecution aka known as sectarian violence.
Testing trumps inference on available data though. I think that is why Popper appeals to physicists especially. Sooner or later we find out that the best inference was still insufficient.
To connect with David’s comment on likelihood methods (#162), I believe testing in this case would consist of consistency “when the number of testable and tested hypotheses about the data is increased”. It becomes a higher level interplay between momentary inference and future testing on validated data. (Hmm. Reminds me of “variation and selection”, but with a lot of unfaithful lateral transfer from one theory to another. :-P)
Testing trumps inference on available data though. I think that is why Popper appeals to physicists especially. Sooner or later we find out that the best inference was still insufficient.
To connect with David’s comment on likelihood methods (#162), I believe testing in this case would consist of consistency “when the number of testable and tested hypotheses about the data is increased”. It becomes a higher level interplay between momentary inference and future testing on validated data. (Hmm. Reminds me of “variation and selection”, but with a lot of unfaithful lateral transfer from one theory to another. :-P)
Incidentally, I consider the hypothesis that tishoo was a troll tested and not disproven. The prediction that tishoo would not come back has been confirmed so far.
Incidentally, I consider the hypothesis that tishoo was a troll tested and not disproven. The prediction that tishoo would not come back has been confirmed so far.
Ravilyn, small correction; It’s Kerela, not Tamilnadu
That would be Kerala, then.
That would be Kerala, then.
Does “the Catholic Church” have a problem with birth control? The answer depends on whether you mean the official church elders’ pronouncements, or what many (perhaps most) of self-identified Catholics believe.
Nice attempt at a dodge, but in America, sadly, there are still many, many Catholic and Protestant evolution-deniers.
raven @ 167:
I can see why you’d think that about the Catholic Church, since Pope John Paul II once said evolution is “more than a hypothesis”, and this year Pope Benedict said he partially believes Darwin’s theories.
But last year Pope Benedict fired his chief astronomer for dissenting from the Holy See’s endorsement of Intelligent Design.
In other words, the official position of the moment is that evolution has been guided by God, rather than being a purely natural process.
I suppose that could be described as “not having a problem with evolution”, but it surely isn’t the scientific theory thereof.
Dustin:
A SLAPP Suit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. So, you might take a moment to explain to me how counterclaims constitute a SLAPP suit.
John Pieret:
I suggested that a $1meg judgment was not unusual – not that it would be awarded. It appears from your posts that you are an attorney and know that the counterclaims would survive the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s action – and I’m certain that WHOI has more than $75k at issue in lost lab work, alone.
A Judge granting Rule 11 sanctions is not really a deterrent. My idea of a deterrent is when a judgement following a jury trial on the merits of the counterclaims establishes precedent for the district court and persuasive precedent for other District Courts.
My point was that this twit came to WHOI under false pretenses – e.g. he lied on his application that he was qualified to perform the research. Moreover, the duty of loyalty to the employer is a serious cause of action – frequently used in cases where the employee misappropriates business method data and client lists. Here we may even have a civil conspiracy to place an ID zealot at WHOI for the express purpose of the lawsuit and the press it generates. Only discovery will tell what the Plaintiff’s motive was.
Any way that you look at it – the WHOI is out at least $50k just to dump the case at the Rule 56 stage and maybe $15-20k for a 12(b)(6) dismissal. These statutes have “prevailing party” attorney’s fees provisions and a defense victory should be followed with a fee petition. The twit has his press – let him pay for it with his Liberty University Stipend.
Nice attempt at misquoting me. I said worldwide. And that most creos were fundie cultists from the south central USA.
The official Catholic position is vague but could be best described as theistic evolution. They demand that god have a role in there somewhere. You were expecting something different from the Pope? The Catholic church isn’t the one taking over school boards and trying to sneak in ID. The Catholics BTW account for roughly 1/2 of the world’s Xians.
Ratzinger has said a few things about evolution, last time he called the creos silly and said the whole conflict was ridiculous. As Pope Pious said decades ago, “One Galileo in 2,000 years was enough.”
Most mainstream Protestant churches don’t have a problem with it either. In fact, many of them don’t much like the fundies and their voluntary ignorance doctrine and sometimes oppose them.
As to what the members think or believe, they are all over the map. At least in the USA, people tend to smile and nod at the doctrine and then believe whatever they want to. The Pope isn’t going to be able to make everyone color within the lines. Even a few fundies and evangelicals don’t have a problem with evolution. The Mormons don’t either.
You have made a simple category mistake. There is no such thing as a Xian. There are dozens of Xian types at least and they vary among each other considerably. In times past they have settled their differences by killing each other en masse. Not exactly the sign of a coherent group of robots.
An incoherent group of robots is better how? And for whom?
I realize that this is close to being gossip, or indeed that it is, but since we really don’t have much knowledge of the situation it seems as reasonable to include as the rest of the unsubstantiated charges. Wes Elsberry wrote this:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1274;p=87828
And to respond to Pieret’s mention that Abraham had worked for seven months without the problem becoming obvious, the above and a host of other possibilities could explain it (we’ll see if they do). It wouldn’t really be hard to “do the work” for months without causing eyebrows to be raised in many of these situations, especially if one acted like Marcus Ross and many others who tried to keep their views from coming out (such as by more or less lying).
Anyhow, I just include the above comments simply as a possibility, more to say that there are any number of scenarios at this stage, than to try to narrow it down to that particular situation.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
The Huntsman Cancer Institute conducts similar research, with substantial advances made in curing cancer, and the institute does it believing in a Greater God.
It would be very intersting to know if Dr. Hahn’s research has cured anyone of cancer
For a long time post-Dover we wondered what the sequel to ‘teach the controversy’ was going to be. Now we know: “Creationist Martyr Worship”.
“Creationist Martyr Worship” is right.
Check out these clowns.
The real issue is not science vs religion. I never let people couch the issue in those terms anymore. I always point out that evolution is a belief system or a religious/philosophical worldview that applies its assumptions to the world we live in exactly the same as one who holds a creation view of origins.
The real issue is the creation science worldview of orgins vs the evolutionary science worldview of origins.
I really hope this discrimination is exposed and repudiated and gov’t funds are cutoff from the slimy fingers of these atheists. These evolutionary atheists are such hypocrites claiming they are maintaining the “purity of science”. They are only perpetuating their $$$, wasting taxpayer money on something that didn’t even happen!!!! And brainwashing the population at the same time just like they did in Russia and China.
These people obviously don’t get, or don’t care to get, the fact that the guy got canned for basically refusing to do his job:
From the OP
“. . . 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.”
My hypothesis is that the objective for trolls is to trash a thread, so that lurkers like me stop reading. I can ignore the troll pretty easy, but trying to ignore all the responses is much harder, and doesn’t seem worth it after awhile.
Of course, maybe I’m just being egocentric.