|
On December 11 2007 10:45 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 10:07 Mindcrime wrote:On December 11 2007 09:56 WhatisProtoss wrote:On December 11 2007 08:40 Jyvblamo wrote:On December 11 2007 08:39 WhatisProtoss wrote:On December 11 2007 06:10 vGl-CoW wrote:On December 11 2007 06:07 HnR)hT wrote: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? how can you be fit for a job in a field where you completely reject one of its main paradigms Many outstanding biologists, chemists, and surgeons are strong Christians. That shows that anybody can be fit for a scientific job, whether with religion or not. Accepting evolution has nothing to do with how well you can perform in a science-related field. Believe it or not, being Christian does not automatically mean that you disbelieve evolution. But, does believing in evolution seriously detract from your performance in science? Albert Einstein believed in a greater intelligence behind the universe. Believing in evolution, believe it or not, has very little to do with how well you can perform a surgery based on one's knowledge of biology. Just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean you denounce theories of biology and chemistry. That's patently false. Einstein stated that he believed not in a personal god, but in "Spinoza's God." To Spinoza, God and Nature were two words for the same thing. Einstein believed in an order to the universe but he did not believe in an intelligence behind it. It should also be noted that Einstein's belief in an ordered universe caused him to be wrong about a number of things. His proposed cosmological constant for one... To split hairs is pointless. The issue at hand is the post-modern denial of the metaphysical.
Uhh..... Denial of the metaphysical... How is that postmodern again? Sounds pretty modern to me. Hume...?
Also, how is that the issue at hand? Please do clarify.
|
On December 11 2007 10:44 FragKrag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 10:43 HeadBangaa wrote: I work in a science lab too, I guess I better keep my ideas silent, lest I be singled-out by this selective neo-intolerance. If you were a physicist, and denied General Relativity WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, would you expect to be fired? I would. I expect to be assessed on my performance, not beliefs. As a blanket policy.
People have the right to be stupid. People have the right to believe in falsities. To consider anything beyond their interface with the rest of the world, is intolerance.
This thread disappoints me. Anybody supporting this, to remain consistent, would have to be OK with churches kicking out gay members, yet retaining tax benefits.
As long as your consistent you're fine, otherwise your a biased douche.
|
i dont get it.
if you dont accept evolution then why study biology and then get a job within the area?
real life troll.
|
On December 11 2007 10:47 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 10:44 FragKrag wrote:On December 11 2007 10:43 HeadBangaa wrote: I work in a science lab too, I guess I better keep my ideas silent, lest I be singled-out by this selective neo-intolerance. If you were a physicist, and denied General Relativity WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, would you expect to be fired? I would. I expect to be assessed on my performance, not beliefs. As a blanket policy. People have the right to be stupid. People have the right to believe in falsities.
People who are stupid and believe in falsities should be fired.
|
On December 11 2007 10:48 pyrogenetix wrote: i dont get it.
if you dont accept evolution then why study biology and then get a job within the area?
real life troll. Biology != evolution.
You don't have to believe in the prevailing theory of a field to be interested in that field. I should say that if this were the case, no new theory would ever come about.
|
On December 11 2007 10:48 pyrogenetix wrote: i dont get it.
if you dont accept evolution then why study biology and then get a job within the area?
real life troll.
Creationists like to study biology, earn their Ph D's somehow, and then be able to tell Christian fundamentalists like themselves "authoritatively" that evolution is nonsense.
|
On December 11 2007 10:48 pyrogenetix wrote: i dont get it.
if you dont accept evolution then why study biology and then get a job within the area?
real life troll. Not all biologists believe that macroevolution explains human origins. But that's not the matter here at all. A man was fired for his beliefs.
See my church analogy. Are you consistent?
|
On December 11 2007 10:50 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 10:48 pyrogenetix wrote: i dont get it.
if you dont accept evolution then why study biology and then get a job within the area?
real life troll. Biology != evolution. You don't have to believe in the prevailing theory of a field to be interested in that field. I should say that if this were the case, no new theory would ever come about.
Evolution is a scientific theory, General Relativity is a scientific theory. Those other ideas that pop out are not. Big difference.
|
On December 11 2007 10:06 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 09:56 WhatisProtoss wrote:On December 11 2007 08:40 Jyvblamo wrote:On December 11 2007 08:39 WhatisProtoss wrote:On December 11 2007 06:10 vGl-CoW wrote:On December 11 2007 06:07 HnR)hT wrote: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? how can you be fit for a job in a field where you completely reject one of its main paradigms Many outstanding biologists, chemists, and surgeons are strong Christians. That shows that anybody can be fit for a scientific job, whether with religion or not. Accepting evolution has nothing to do with how well you can perform in a science-related field. Believe it or not, being Christian does not automatically mean that you disbelieve evolution. But, does believing in evolution seriously detract from your performance in science? Albert Einstein believed in a greater intelligence behind the universe. Believing in evolution, believe it or not, has very little to do with how well you can perform a surgery based on one's knowledge of biology. Just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean you denounce theories of biology and chemistry. I don't see how believing in and applying evolution affect each other. Evolution is simply a model. One can disagree with it but still apply it correctly. Whoa.... How do you APPLY evolution?! Since when have people been applying evolution in their jobs??
|
You're under a misconception of employment protection. Private companies can fire you for most anything except explicit protected categories like racism, sexism, disability. You can and do get fired for what you believe or do on your personal time, even if it is legal.
60 minutes did a story about how an insurance company ordered all workers to quit smoking in 30 days or be fired. And a bunch of workers where fired.
And there was the CNN story of atheists getting fired, or even chased out of small towns, when they just happen to mention they did not attend church. Nothing illegal.
|
On December 11 2007 10:42 NoName wrote: Is this so different from churches excommunicating gay clergy? Or even kicking out or wrong minded members.
Not that I would be sad to see conservative churches sued to oblivion for discrimination and hate speech.
Evolution is a foundation tenant of biological sciences. It's like a computer scientist rejecting shannon information theory (wiki it). Or power engineer denying conservation of energy.
I like this post.
It's a great example of the contradicting logic you people subscribe too.
You don't afford the opposing view an equal right. Neotolerance, FTL.
|
On December 11 2007 10:53 FragKrag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 10:50 fight_or_flight wrote:On December 11 2007 10:48 pyrogenetix wrote: i dont get it.
if you dont accept evolution then why study biology and then get a job within the area?
real life troll. Biology != evolution. You don't have to believe in the prevailing theory of a field to be interested in that field. I should say that if this were the case, no new theory would ever come about. Evolution is a scientific theory, General Relativity is a scientific theory. Those other ideas that pop out are not. Big difference. I'm just saying, maybe he's interested in animals and stuff. pyrogenetix made it sound like evolution and biology were synonymous, when in fact one is a subset of the other.
|
On December 11 2007 10:56 WhatisProtoss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 10:06 fight_or_flight wrote:On December 11 2007 09:56 WhatisProtoss wrote:On December 11 2007 08:40 Jyvblamo wrote:On December 11 2007 08:39 WhatisProtoss wrote:On December 11 2007 06:10 vGl-CoW wrote:On December 11 2007 06:07 HnR)hT wrote: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? how can you be fit for a job in a field where you completely reject one of its main paradigms Many outstanding biologists, chemists, and surgeons are strong Christians. That shows that anybody can be fit for a scientific job, whether with religion or not. Accepting evolution has nothing to do with how well you can perform in a science-related field. Believe it or not, being Christian does not automatically mean that you disbelieve evolution. But, does believing in evolution seriously detract from your performance in science? Albert Einstein believed in a greater intelligence behind the universe. Believing in evolution, believe it or not, has very little to do with how well you can perform a surgery based on one's knowledge of biology. Just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean you denounce theories of biology and chemistry. I don't see how believing in and applying evolution affect each other. Evolution is simply a model. One can disagree with it but still apply it correctly. Whoa.... How do you APPLY evolution?! Since when have people been applying evolution in their jobs?? Well obviously he had to apply the theory and he didn't, thats why he lost his job. I honestly don't know how its "applied" in a research setting.
|
On December 11 2007 07:33 Mayson wrote: I have a hard time agreeing with half of the things that evolutionary psychologists say, but I've never had trouble completing an assignment on it.
He can still do his job while personally disagreeing with the theory he's working with. Hawk, I'm sure that with his education, and his placement at a federally-funded program, both parties are aware of what "researcher bias" is and how to control for it.
It's the first thing you learn in how to conduct research.
Omg its this guy again -___-, you must be seriously the dumbest person on this site...
This isnt a scientist proposing another scientific theory over evolution, its just a fanatic retard who blindly believes over a book written 2 thousand years ago over the overwhelming evidence in his face, that is a man that clearly cannot reason properly, or atleast not good enough for being in that research team.
|
On December 11 2007 10:59 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 10:53 FragKrag wrote:On December 11 2007 10:50 fight_or_flight wrote:On December 11 2007 10:48 pyrogenetix wrote: i dont get it.
if you dont accept evolution then why study biology and then get a job within the area?
real life troll. Biology != evolution. You don't have to believe in the prevailing theory of a field to be interested in that field. I should say that if this were the case, no new theory would ever come about. Evolution is a scientific theory, General Relativity is a scientific theory. Those other ideas that pop out are not. Big difference. I'm just saying, maybe he's interested in animals and stuff. pyrogenetix made it sound like evolution and biology were synonymous, when in fact one is a subset of the other.
Evolution is a cornerstone of Biology. If he's interested in animals, why not be interested in where they came from? How animals have complex structures, etc? Sometime, a confliction will occur. Better to fire earlier than later.
And the the 'applying evolution', It's the media. You think they actually payed attention in high school bio?
|
Anyone ever seen an Islamic Rabbi?
|
On December 11 2007 11:01 FragKrag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 10:59 fight_or_flight wrote:On December 11 2007 10:53 FragKrag wrote:On December 11 2007 10:50 fight_or_flight wrote:On December 11 2007 10:48 pyrogenetix wrote: i dont get it.
if you dont accept evolution then why study biology and then get a job within the area?
real life troll. Biology != evolution. You don't have to believe in the prevailing theory of a field to be interested in that field. I should say that if this were the case, no new theory would ever come about. Evolution is a scientific theory, General Relativity is a scientific theory. Those other ideas that pop out are not. Big difference. I'm just saying, maybe he's interested in animals and stuff. pyrogenetix made it sound like evolution and biology were synonymous, when in fact one is a subset of the other. Evolution is a cornerstone of Biology. If he's interested in animals, why not be interested in where they came from? How animals have complex structures, etc? I don't know, maybe hes interested in mating dances of zebrafish or something.
|
On December 11 2007 11:00 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 07:33 Mayson wrote: I have a hard time agreeing with half of the things that evolutionary psychologists say, but I've never had trouble completing an assignment on it.
He can still do his job while personally disagreeing with the theory he's working with. Hawk, I'm sure that with his education, and his placement at a federally-funded program, both parties are aware of what "researcher bias" is and how to control for it.
It's the first thing you learn in how to conduct research. Omg its this guy again -___-, you must be seriously the dumbest person on this site... This isnt a scientist proposing another scientific theory over evolution, its just a fanatic retard who blindly believes over a book written 2 thousand years ago over the overwhelming evidence in his face, that is a man that clearly cannot reason properly, or atleast not good enough for being in that research team. I too believe in that book. Am I not intelligent enough to write all the code I'm writing right now? Should I be fired for stupidity? The studies in this lab sometimes refer to evolutionary concepts, am I suddenly not qualified to do the job I've trained years for???
If it's not effecting his job, you're firing someone for their beliefs.
And that's ok, just revoke all equal opportunity laws and remain consistent. Make it OK to fire anybody for their personal choices, and I am seriously 100% OK with this decision.
|
On December 11 2007 11:04 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 11:01 FragKrag wrote:On December 11 2007 10:59 fight_or_flight wrote:On December 11 2007 10:53 FragKrag wrote:On December 11 2007 10:50 fight_or_flight wrote:On December 11 2007 10:48 pyrogenetix wrote: i dont get it.
if you dont accept evolution then why study biology and then get a job within the area?
real life troll. Biology != evolution. You don't have to believe in the prevailing theory of a field to be interested in that field. I should say that if this were the case, no new theory would ever come about. Evolution is a scientific theory, General Relativity is a scientific theory. Those other ideas that pop out are not. Big difference. I'm just saying, maybe he's interested in animals and stuff. pyrogenetix made it sound like evolution and biology were synonymous, when in fact one is a subset of the other. Evolution is a cornerstone of Biology. If he's interested in animals, why not be interested in where they came from? How animals have complex structures, etc? I don't know, maybe hes interested in mating dances of zebrafish or something.
I would be too. Zebrafish are fucking AMAZING.
|
On December 11 2007 11:06 FragKrag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 11:04 fight_or_flight wrote:On December 11 2007 11:01 FragKrag wrote:On December 11 2007 10:59 fight_or_flight wrote:On December 11 2007 10:53 FragKrag wrote:On December 11 2007 10:50 fight_or_flight wrote:On December 11 2007 10:48 pyrogenetix wrote: i dont get it.
if you dont accept evolution then why study biology and then get a job within the area?
real life troll. Biology != evolution. You don't have to believe in the prevailing theory of a field to be interested in that field. I should say that if this were the case, no new theory would ever come about. Evolution is a scientific theory, General Relativity is a scientific theory. Those other ideas that pop out are not. Big difference. I'm just saying, maybe he's interested in animals and stuff. pyrogenetix made it sound like evolution and biology were synonymous, when in fact one is a subset of the other. Evolution is a cornerstone of Biology. If he's interested in animals, why not be interested in where they came from? How animals have complex structures, etc? I don't know, maybe hes interested in mating dances of zebrafish or something. I would be too. Zebrafish are fucking AMAZING.
You would have to understand the evolutionary pressures that produced the Zebrafish mating dances? =P
|
|
|
|
|
|