| Forum Index > Closed |
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On December 11 2007 11:08 Jyvblamo wrote: You would have to understand the evolutionary pressures that produced the Zebrafish mating dances? =P Well, maybe he does understand it, but doesn't believe it...which if you expand the quote above will see that we've come full circle. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On December 11 2007 10:50 HeadBangaa wrote: 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? According to another write up of the case: 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. Found it here The man was not fired because of his beliefs. He was fired because his beliefs interfered with the job that he was hired to do. If I'm a militant vegetarian, I'm not going to apply for a job at a steakhouse, refuse to cook steak, and then get all bitchy when I get fired for being a dumbass. | ||
|
pansy
United States309 Posts
On December 11 2007 11:05 HeadBangaa wrote: 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. From the article: The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination dismissed the case this year, saying Abraham's request not to work on evolutionary aspects of research would be difficult for Woods Hole because its work is based on evolutionary theories. I guess his beliefs do conflict with his job, so it's perfectly within their rights to fire him. | ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
| ||
|
WhatisProtoss
Korea (South)2325 Posts
On December 11 2007 11:00 fight_or_flight wrote: 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. Are you sure? I don't know how his failure to "apply" evolution could have resulted in his dismissal. Unless he was supposed to teach classes on it and refused to do so, because of his creationism. There's no way evolution can be applied to research. It's just a theory. Not fact. (He was correct in saying that evolution could not be accepted as a fact, however.) | ||
|
WhatisProtoss
Korea (South)2325 Posts
 | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
FragKrag
United States11554 Posts
On December 11 2007 11:19 mahnini wrote: IN THIS THREAD: People who don't read the article. ;D What did you expect from a thread that had such potential as a Creationist v Evolution war? | ||
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
On December 11 2007 10:41 HeadBangaa wrote: I think it's fine, but then, I believe people should be able to get fired for anything unsavory to their employer, including gender, sexual orientation, and taste in music. :/ gender, sexual orientation and taste in music have nothing to do with teh subject of biology. fail. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On December 11 2007 11:18 WhatisProtoss wrote:There's no way evolution can be applied to research. It's just a theory. Not fact. I'm sure it can be applied...otherwise it wouldn't be a very good theory, would it? (such as string theory..) | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32097 Posts
On December 11 2007 11:19 mahnini wrote: IN THIS THREAD: People who don't read the article. yah its pretty funnylol | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11554 Posts
On December 11 2007 11:18 WhatisProtoss wrote: Are you sure? I don't know how his failure to "apply" evolution could have resulted in his dismissal. Unless he was supposed to teach classes on it and refused to do so, because of his creationism. There's no way evolution can be applied to research. It's just a theory. Not fact. (He was correct in saying that evolution could not be accepted as a fact, however.) "Just" a theory? "JUST" a theory? Do you know what a scientific theory IS? | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On December 11 2007 09:44 ToKoreaWithLove wrote: Yes, but the article also states that his case was dismissed because he requested not to work on "evolutionary aspects of research". I don't know how this commision work, but I imagine they do their research, so it is tempting to dismiss him - however I am not doing that, I am merely stating that he was rightfully fired if this is correct. The article also includes "Abraham, who was dismissed eight months after he was hired, said he was willing to do research using evolutionary concepts but that he had been required to accept Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific fact or lose his job." Its more he said she said bullshit. Either way it comes down to why he was fired. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On December 11 2007 10:50 HeadBangaa wrote: 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? This is quite true. Liberty University does have a Biology department after all. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On December 11 2007 11:16 Mindcrime wrote: The man was not fired because of his beliefs. He was fired because his beliefs interfered with the job that he was hired to do. Oh well yes that's true, thanks for bringing relevant information. You're right, he was refusing to perform his job duty. I'm still sorely disappointed with the comments of the thread. Most have made it clear that they don't respect religious beliefs and don't have any concern for tolerance in that regard. Regardless of the job effect. | ||
|
shmay
United States1091 Posts
On December 11 2007 11:18 WhatisProtoss wrote: Are you sure? I don't know how his failure to "apply" evolution could have resulted in his dismissal. Unless he was supposed to teach classes on it and refused to do so, because of his creationism. There's no way evolution can be applied to research. It's just a theory. Not fact. (He was correct in saying that evolution could not be accepted as a fact, however.) there is a huge misconception of theory and fact in evolution. evolution is a fact, due to overwhelming evidence in its favor. however, it is also a theory, due to the attempts to explain HOW it happened theory of evolution= how it happened. fact of evolution = it happened wikipedia explains it well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact | ||
|
SirKibbleX
United States479 Posts
Now we just need a argument-type that plays like protoss and we can have Starcraft debate!! | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On December 11 2007 11:33 Mindcrime wrote: This is quite true. Liberty University does have a Biology department after all. I've read from many biologists who believe that nature is obviously the work of a designer. Not Christians or religious ones, and I've heard of biologists who have come to believe in God through their work in the natural sciences. Nature is God's greatest work. I'm not implying that's the majority opinion. But for you to imply that nobody worth their salt has considered creationism, is absurd. I'm out of this thread anyways, it's incredibly disappointing. | ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
On December 11 2007 11:37 SirKibbleX wrote: Dude you know how ZvT and TvZ play out a certain way? Religious debates are super-predictable like that, you always see the same arguments on both sides, and they are usually won on skill (although I find the atheist side to be kind of imba with all the great things the scientific method has done for humanity and all the terrible things religion has done to it). Now we just need a argument-type that plays like protoss and we can have Starcraft debate!! Protoss can be ad-hominem arguments. "Halp his corsairs are raping my self-esteem!" | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11554 Posts
On December 11 2007 11:37 SirKibbleX wrote: Dude you know how ZvT and TvZ play out a certain way? Religious debates are super-predictable like that, you always see the same arguments on both sides, and they are usually won on skill (although I find the atheist side to be kind of imba with all the great things the scientific method has done for humanity and all the terrible things religion has done to it). Now we just need a argument-type that plays like protoss and we can have Starcraft debate!! No, it is nothing like SC because SC is balanced. It's more like WC3. Evolution being Human, and Creation being Orc. So fucking imbalanced. How does Orc win Hu v Orc ?  | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Ladder Legends
BSL 21
StRyKeR vs TBD
Bonyth vs TBD
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs Solar
Clem vs Classic
Cure vs herO
Reynor vs MaxPax
Replay Cast
|
|
|
EPT
