|
On December 11 2007 06:07 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 05:53 Aepplet wrote: not believing in evolution obviously made him unfit for the job. this is no different from any other firing. How can belief in a proposition or lack thereof make someone unfit for any job?
Refusing to do a portion of the work that you were hired to do because of that lack of belief certainly makes you unfit.
|
guy obviously can't contribute anything, so it's pretty reasonable to fire him
|
It is and should be quite impossible for a biologist to have any merit if he refuses to believe the defining theory in the field, through which all other studies are interpreted. When he's looking for a job, he really should say he's a creationist up-front, he won't be a biologist for much longer, but at least he won't be able to sue for wrongful termination.
If this guy testifies, I hope that the testimony is released, particularly the cross examination. I think it'll go something like this:
Lawyer: "Mr. Abraham, you consider yourself a biologist, correct?" Abraham: "Yes." Lawyer: "Can you explain to the court: what is biology?" Abraham: "Simply, its the study of living things." Lawyer: "More specifically, its the study of 'life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, esp. with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior.' At least that's the dictionary definition. Does that sound right to you?" Abraham: "Yes." Lawyer: "Is biology a science?" Abraham: "Yes." Lawyer: "And... let me get my dictionary... science is the 'systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation,' correct?" Abraham: "That sounds right." Lawyer: "And you're a creationist." Abraham: "Yes, that's why they fired me." Lawyer: "Mr. Abraham, isn't it true that they fired you because you don't actually do anything your job requires?" Prosecutor: "OBJECTION!" Lawyer: "I'll withdrawal. You're a biologist, Mr. Abraham-- a scientist-- that believes that the origin living things is magic. That the growth, structure, and behavior of living things was determined less than 10,000 years ago by a divine being, and your evidence is..." Abraham: "The Bible!" Lawyer: "So, when an employer asks you to find out what the immediate predecessor-species to the crocodile is, or why they're territorial, you report that there is no immediate predecessor-species and they're ornery because God made them that way?" Prosecutor: "OBJECTION!" Lawyer: "Wouldn't that make you a pretty shitty employee, Mr. Abraham?" Prosecutor: "OBJECTION!"
etc etc. lol
|
Hi guys im a scientist who doesnt believe in science...please hire me....
|
He didn't do the work he was hired for - it's that simple. If i get hired as a butcher but refuse to touch meat because i'm a vegetarian, should i keep my job? Of course not.
|
Newton and Einstein were completely full of shit. Hire me asap NASA.
|
I don't have much sympathy for either side.
The Science group probably fired the dude because of a disdain for religion rather than the scientist's performance.
But suing for "mental anguish" is pretty low.
|
LMFAO are you serious. Ok I'm going to give a situation, I am a world-class chef that gets hired to cook at a world-famous steakhouse. Only thing is after I get hired I ramble on about how cooking meat violates my morality, and it is cruel to animals. And, after the first few weeks I get fired because I was not doing the job I was hired to do. Does this sound reasonable? I would say so.
The bottom line is the fucktard was motivated before he even got there. You can't honestly be a biologist and expect not to research into proving/disproving evolutionary theory. And, any one who teaches at Liberty schools is an testament to human ignorance. Did you know at the first "Liberty" school in the UK there is a display of dinosaur bones that are supposedly thousands of years old, and thus proving evolution wrong in all aspects. But the part that embarrasses me as a fucking human being is that they wont let scientists test them because of fear of the "atheist conspiracy," and that ALL forms radioactive dating are wrong. I hope this cased gets dismissed in the most humiliating way possible.
|
How come this site is like 75% atheist yet 50% don't understand evolution's place in science, or what evolution is and isn't, etc.?
|
Yeah, Liberty University is pretty much the most bullshit thing ever. I have more respect for someone who graduates from clown college.
|
how do you know 75% of TL are atheist, because 32 people voted no in the poll in your blog?
|
There is a big difference between "theory" as used in everyday language and a "scientific theory"
Wiki:
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts.
"Not accepting the scientific theory of evolution" is the same as denying reality. Science is all about determining truth, if you want to live in a fantasy world you're free to do so, but you have no bussiness teaching in schools or in research. Pretty straighforward if you ask me.
|
On December 11 2007 06:26 lugggy wrote: How come this site is like 75% atheist yet 50% don't understand evolution's place in science, or what evolution is and isn't, etc.?
Explain yourself... how do we not understand its place? I don't even see anyone attempting to explain evolution in its entirety. Therefore how can you state the assumption that no one here understands it? Please enlighten us ignorants because you have done such a thorough job of pointing out our ignorance of evolutionary theory.
|
Germany2896 Posts
On December 11 2007 05:45 lugggy wrote: It would be like a physicist claiming there is actually no gravitational force to his boss. If not believing in gravitational force makes you a bad physicist, I am one. And Einstein must be the worst physicist of all time, as his GTR states gravity is no force, but gravity is the result of the curvature of space and time caused my matter.
|
On December 11 2007 06:32 MasterOfChaos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 05:45 lugggy wrote: It would be like a physicist claiming there is actually no gravitational force to his boss. If not believing in gravitational force makes a bas physicist, I am one. And Einstein must be the worst physicist of all time, as his GTR states gravity is no force, but gravity is the result of the curvature of space and time caused my matter.
Masterofchaos, it's this kind of useless pedantic arguments that allow idiots to quote mine the scientific community and set up strawmans. Please stop.
|
On December 11 2007 06:29 zulu_nation8 wrote: how do you know 75% of TL are atheist, because 32 people voted no in the poll in your blog? No, I asked every single member in-person.
As for gravitational force, I did not mean this in some theory-specific technical sense like you equivocators are taking it, but in the simple sense that our observations confirm for bodies as we generally see them. Whatever, maybe it was not a perfect example. But to pretend you don't know what I mean, in some way to defend this guy as a Biologist, is utterly dishonest and disgusting.
|
On December 11 2007 05:31 vGl-CoW wrote: i wish i could get half a mill for being a retard QFT
|
so if there are 145 people logged in right now, 32 people is only like 1/4 of that right
|
Norway10161 Posts
You forgot me.
Anyway this guy sounds like a troll. Why would he study biology and then reject everything based on a 2000-year old book written by uneducated men? If he was a member here he would be banned.
|
No I am pretty sure I asked everyone in-person and recorded their responses. You must not remember.
|
|
|
|
|
|