BOSTON (Reuters) - A Christian biologist is suing the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, claiming he was fired for refusing to accept evolution, lawyers involved in the case said on Friday.
Nathaniel Abraham, an Indian national who describes himself as a "Bible-believing Christian," said in the suit filed on Monday in U.S. District Court in Boston that he was fired in 2004 because he would not accept evolution as scientific fact.
The latest U.S. academic spat over science and religion was first reported in The Boston Globe newspaper on Friday. Gibbs Law Firm in Florida, which is representing Abraham, said he was seeking $500,000 in compensation.
The zebrafish specialist said his civil rights were violated when he was dismissed shortly after telling his superior he did not accept evolution because he believed the Bible presented a true account of human creation.
Creationists such as Abraham believe God made the world in six days, as the Bible's Book of Genesis says.
Woods Hole, a federally funded nonprofit research center on Cape Cod, said in a statement it firmly believed its actions and those of its employees in the case were "entirely lawful" and that it does not discriminate.
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.
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.
Abraham said this condition was never spelled out in the advertisement for the job and that his dismissal led to severe economic losses, an injured reputation, emotional pain and suffering and mental anguish.
The case underscores tension between scientists, who see creationist views as anti-science, and evangelical Christians who argue that protections of religious freedom enshrined in the U.S. Constitution extend to scientific settings.
Abraham, 35, is now a biology professor at Liberty University, a Baptist school in Virginia founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, a Christian pastor and televangelist.
(Editing by Todd Eastham)
Summary: A Christian biologist is let go after he refused to acknowledge evolution as a fact. Kinda interesting situation. I'm all for believing in whatever the hell you want, but this is was at a federally funded program. Seems pretty justified to me. Thoughts?
As wrong as it may be for him to get fired, I lost all sympathy after reading this
Abraham said this condition was never spelled out in the advertisement for the job and that his dismissal led to severe economic losses, an injured reputation, emotional pain and suffering and mental anguish.
Not that I have much sympathy for creationists anyways. Hohoho jaykay jaykay
He shouldn't win, as he has no credible grounds for rejecting such a basic tenet of modern Biology. If he did, he'd be sitting on a scientific goldmine and would have published something peer reviewed about it and be famous by now. But he can't, so really he's not a very good Biologist for taking that kind of view of his area of study and not being able to make it scientific at all, and such people should be fired. It would be like a physicist claiming there is actually no gravitational force to his boss. baleet those people.
Its pretty ridiculous to force scientists to accept any theory as "fact". Its just wrong.
However, funding dollars are used to conduct specific research on specific theories, and if they simply didn't have funding for non-evolution research, then that is a different matter.
fight_or_flight, in science you are expected to provide a scientific alternative, and if you can't, accept the current one. evolution has stood up, shown its value as a unifying principle, and nothing else has. there are many facts of evolution, the theory to tie the facts together is ever-changing and only part of it. for a scientist to utterly deny those facts and all the different theories and to not offer a scientific alternative is simply utterly bad science, and no one should keep him on as a scientist under such circumstances.
On December 11 2007 05:48 fight_or_flight wrote: Its pretty ridiculous to force scientists to accept any theory as "fact". Its just wrong.
However, funding dollars are used to conduct specific research on specific theories, and if they simply didn't have funding for non-evolution research, then that is a different matter.
it's far from wrong when it's the freaking theory of evolution, which has an overwhelming body of evidence to support it
hey where'd that zebrafish come from?
oh, god created it, huh?
and it's six thousand years old, just like everything else?
yeah i'm gonna stop spending my precious funding on you now
My main point luggy is that he should have been fired for lack of funding, not or that he wasn't working towards the research-team's goals. However, forcing somebody so accept a theory as fact is always wrong. Its the same as christians believing in non-evolution creationism and not considering anything else.
On December 11 2007 05:56 fight_or_flight wrote: My main point luggy is that he should have been fired for lack of funding, not or that he wasn't working towards the research-team's goals. However, forcing somebody so accept a theory as fact is always wrong. Its the same as christians believing in non-evolution creationism and not considering anything else.
no man, it's not the same
the difference is that a scientist is willing to listen to alternatives, provided they have sufficient backing (e.g. proof)
a fundamentalist christian will only believe what is written in the bible
On December 11 2007 05:48 fight_or_flight wrote: Its pretty ridiculous to force scientists to accept any theory as "fact". Its just wrong.
However, funding dollars are used to conduct specific research on specific theories, and if they simply didn't have funding for non-evolution research, then that is a different matter.
You've shown a complete lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is. Good job.
Evolution is fact, and biologists are in the wrong field if they don't accept it. There is just no proof of evolution as the cause of life on earth, because it is pretty impossible to prove one way or another. No scientist would get fired for not accepting that much as fact, because the scientists putting forward those theories do not accept them as fact. And those theories are still being developed and changed, and from year to year, things like the origin of certain early prokaryotes can vary by half a billion years or so.
Worst of all is not accepting it for the most unscientific of reasons, religious ones. I don't know the other details of the case, but after reading:
Abraham, 35, is now a biology professor at Liberty University, a Baptist school in Virginia founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, a Christian pastor and televangelist.
On December 11 2007 05:56 fight_or_flight wrote: My main point luggy is that he should have been fired for lack of funding, not or that he wasn't working towards the research-team's goals. However, forcing somebody so accept a theory as fact is always wrong. Its the same as christians believing in non-evolution creationism and not considering anything else.
no man, it's not the same
the difference is that a scientist is willing to listen to alternatives, provided they have sufficient backing (e.g. proof)
a fundamentalist christian will only believe what is written in the bible
This issue is pretty subtle, however, this is the main impedance to science. I will leave you guys with some things to ponder:
"...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted. ...in the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them." -Albert Einstein
"…science is not the danger; scientists encouraged to do bad science to survive are.” … "…changing the way modern science is funded is an enormous undertaking, but it is a necessary one if we want to protect our future. Call it managed risk." -Smith
"Anybody who has studied the history of science or worked as a scientist knows that whenever something novel is discovered or proposed, there is a polarization of scientists, with hostility and bitterness that may last for generations. What wins arguments is scientific fact, and that may change as the years go by. A good example of this is the geological theory of continental drift, as proposed by Wegener in 1912. When I studied geology around 1950, continental drift was acknowledged in my undergraduate textbook as a crank theory. The first serious confirmation was in 1956, and it was finally established as the dominant theory in the early 1970s. Until that time, anybody who admitted that he or she believed in continental drift was the subject of derision and scorn. Sorry, folks, science is not and has never been the 'idealized portrait painted in textbooks'." -Allan Blair
"…I suggest that most revolutions in science have taken place outside the lofty arena of the refereed journals, and with good reason. The philosophy by which these journals govern themselves virtually precludes publication of ideas that challenge an existing consensus." -William K. George
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning." -Max Planck
"We used to be able to say things once; if the message was reasonable, it had a good chance of becoming a permanent part of the structure of the field. Today, a single publication is lost; if we say it only once, it will be presumed that we have changed our mind, and we therefore must publish repeatedly. This further fuels the large publication volume that requires us to repeat." -Rolf Landauer
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible he is very probably wrong." [Clarke's First Law]
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.?
Not every atheist needs to have a theory for being what they are to compete with the theory of God or any other divine/mystical origin, and even fewer are evolutionary biologists. Better question: why do you expect atheists to be experts on evolution theory?
I hope he doesnt win his lawsuit. Plus he probably got his current job for claiming to be fired for being an creationist. Also if you read the first page of the bible and go "oh, that makes sense" you are a moron.
EDIT:I'm not knocking the whole book, just the first page.
On December 11 2007 06:45 Eatme wrote: I hope he doesnt win his lawsuit. Plus he probably got his current job for claiming to be fired for being an creationist. Also if you read the first page of the bible and go "oh, that makes sense" you are a moron.
EDIT:I'm not knocking the whole book, just the first page.
Only the first page? I would say that about the whole of the primeval history presented in the Bible.
On December 11 2007 06:45 Eatme wrote: I hope he doesnt win his lawsuit. Plus he probably got his current job for claiming to be fired for being an creationist. Also if you read the first page of the bible and go "oh, that makes sense" you are a moron.
EDIT:I'm not knocking the whole book, just the first page.
Only the first page? I would say that about the whole of the primeval history presented in the Bible.
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.?
Not every atheist needs to have a theory for being what they are to compete with the theory of God or any other divine/mystical origin, and even fewer are evolutionary biologists. Better question: why do you expect atheists to be experts on evolution theory?
It's not a level of expertise I am demanding. More like, basic knowledge. You know. The earth isn't flat, right? That's not expert training, that's what you should know. Like, you know there were dinosaurs right? It's stuff like that. Don't we pretty much all come from nations that have compulsory schooling for 10+ years?
This is stupid. If he does his job correctly he can believe whatever he wants. If he truly was performing satisfactorily, then he was wrongfully terminated and should get what he is asking for. Most of you are completely contradictory and had a scientist been expelled from seminary school, would've been up in arms had he or she decided on a lawsuit.
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.?
Not every atheist needs to have a theory for being what they are to compete with the theory of God or any other divine/mystical origin, and even fewer are evolutionary biologists. Better question: why do you expect atheists to be experts on evolution theory?
It's not a level of expertise I am demanding. More like, basic knowledge. You know. The earth isn't flat, right? That's not expert training, that's what you should know. Like, you know there were dinosaurs right? It's stuff like that. Don't we pretty much all come from nations that have compulsory schooling for 10+ years?
You really can't make those claims. There is no "basic knowledge". This are only "basic assumptions". Honestly, if someone told me that the earth was flat, I would have lunch with them and get them to explain their ideas.
edit: look at it this way - another view is that a few centuries ago it was "basic knowledge" that the earth was flat. Pretty obvious to everyone at the time.
This thread needs hotbid's legal insight. I thought it was just an interesting legal case, not another excuse who believers and non believers to argue again (although I really shoulda seen it coming lol)
•since it's a federally funded program, wouldn't it be in some way deal with a seperation of church and state? •i dont see how it could possibly be discrimination since he admits that he doesn't believe in the theory that he would be applying every day during work. And his findings would be published. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want someone's religious views finding their way into my biology text books..
If a scientist really believed in this, especially a biologist, I would sincerely doubt his motivation and credibility. No matter who it is or what it's about, anyone with an unmovable belief in anything is not a true scientist.
On December 11 2007 06:45 Eatme wrote: I hope he doesnt win his lawsuit. Plus he probably got his current job for claiming to be fired for being an creationist. Also if you read the first page of the bible and go "oh, that makes sense" you are a moron.
EDIT:I'm not knocking the whole book, just the first page.
Only the first page? I would say that about the whole of the primeval history presented in the Bible.
Plus all the God-sanctioned genocide.
Sssshhh I just tried to cover myself from flames ok. Plus that I have not read enough after the first page to jump into a bible quoting argument.
Well, I can't say I'm surprised to hear that a Creationist denies a theory that's more-or-less been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't doubt the anguish he's experiencing, although said cognitive dissonance is really his own fault for failing to look at the information available, compare and contrast that to his religious beliefs, and then realize that his religious beliefs are just that: beliefs; they are nothing more. They are not founded on any tangible, quantifiable evidence.
But, as much as I hate to say it, I can't agree that firing him was correct. It is not the job of his employer to force his views on him, no matter how "correct" said employer may feel said views are. It is the right of the individual in this country to be free from religious prosecution. That's what the United States of America were founded on.
He did not refuse to do his job; he refused to accept another's view of the given topic. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
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?
What if you went into physics not believing in gravity?
And surely you would not want someone who builds cars not to believe in thermodynamics.
The problem with belief is that it's unfounded. He could surely do his part to try to produce valid, experimental results that discredit the theory of evolution, but since he didn't, he was thrown out. There is no injustice in what happened to him. This is on the level of a holocaust doubter trying to become a historian and getting laughed at, and then him sueing for "mental anguish".
On December 11 2007 07:13 Mayson wrote: But, as much as I hate to say it, I can't agree that firing him was correct. It is not the job of his employer to force his views on him, no matter how "correct" said employer may feel said views are. It is the right of the individual in this country to be free from religious prosecution. That's what the United States of America were founded on.
Then how do you explain all of the state-sanctioned religious persecution that took place both before and after the ratification of the Constitution? Massachusetts still had a state church into the 1830s. Pennsylvania, and (iirc) Maryland had state churches during the same period. Several states barred non-Christians and even Catholics from holding office or serving on juries.
EDIT: Oh, and you can still find a few state constitutions that bar non-monotheists from holding office.
On December 11 2007 07:13 Mayson wrote: Well, I can't say I'm surprised to hear that a Creationist denies a theory that's more-or-less been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't doubt the anguish he's experiencing, although said cognitive dissonance is really his own fault for failing to look at the information available, compare and contrast that to his religious beliefs, and then realize that his religious beliefs are just that: beliefs; they are nothing more. They are not founded on any tangible, quantifiable evidence.
But, as much as I hate to say it, I can't agree that firing him was correct. It is not the job of his employer to force his views on him, no matter how "correct" said employer may feel said views are. It is the right of the individual in this country to be free from religious prosecution. That's what the United States of America were founded on.
He did not refuse to do his job; he refused to accept another's view of the given topic. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
I think it's BECAUSE it's a religious issue we are forcing ourselves to try and be tolerant, to try and overlook the stupidity. The theory of evolution is not something that should be shrugged off so easily, though it may be considered a "theory", much like gravity, it has stood the test of time and is still being reinforced and expanded. If someone were to out right reject this theory because of an irrational belief in some deity, and that man is a biologist, well I would say he was somewhat unfit to do his job. Though this highly depends on the nature of his job.
Edit: I just read the article after skimming through it:
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.
He did not refuse to do his job; he refused to accept another's view of the given topic. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
Yeah, but his job is to take that scientific theory and apply it to real-life instances and publish results with federal money. His writings could very easily be influenced by his beliefs and could damage the reputation of the other scientists in his group and risk losing their federal money.
There's a big difference between someone gettin fired from their 9-5 accountant's job for being religious from this.
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.
My take on this is that if he is teaching a science class, he should teach science. I am all about acceptance and tolerance and compassion, but a science class is about science, not about God and 7 day creation stuff.
Similarly, I wouldn't want calculus to be taught in an english class. If the dude can teach biology and carry out good work, then I don't care if he is a Christian. But if he is trying to teach Christianity in a biology class, especially with federal dollars... it just doesn't seem right.
Hypothesis: Irreducibly complex systems of advanced functional complexity are the product of design.
Prediction: ID predicts that anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics which are measurable in terms of complexity, objective patterns and functional complexity.
Mechanism: The mechanism of Intelligent Design is "design," the means by which engineers build sophisticated systems. Design is a tool in the toolkit of the designer. We can say that "design" is driven by intelligence, like "natural selection" is driven by the environment. Look up the synonyms for design and there is no contradiction, they fit quite plainly for those who understand the English language. Mechanism... synonym: means. Method. System. Procedure. A finch's beak adapts to the environment by changing it's shape/size by the mechanism of "natural selection." (Darwinists call it evolution, it is adaptation)
The rigorous criteria of the scientific method:
1. Formulate an hypothesis, make a prediction. 2. Design an experiment to test the hypothesis. 3. Observe the experiment and produce data. 4. Repeat the experiment. Verify repeatability.
To test the ID hypothesis we utilize the scientific method as follows:
1. Irreducibly complex systems of advanced functional complexity are the product of design. Anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics. 2. Employ the Explanatory filter: a three stage flow chart, a classic method of induction/deduction for detecting design. 3. Observe tests of known designed systems/objects and *non-designed artifacts of nature. 4. The test is repeatable and verifiable.
*non-designed artifacts: There were formative rocks that we observed spewing out of Mount St. Helens in the form of lava. These young rocks are clearly not the direct work of an intelligent agent. We could use one of those rocks. Or maybe another rock of your choice. We observe crystals "growing" which embody complexity and objective patterns, some might argue that a crystal even contains rudimentary information. We could use one of those crystals.
ID predicts that anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics. When you run a "snow flake" through the "Explanatory Filter" the results tell us that the snow flake was not designed. Put a "simple cell" (as Darwin put it) in the "Explanatory Filter" and the results tell us that the "simple cell" was designed. Evolutionists have difficulty with this because they are emotionally attached to evolution, Darwin is their prophet and Nature is their God.
Scientists assert that design is detectable in "molecular machines," like the bacterial flagellum (there are thousands of such examples.) We observe that this tiny motor needs all of its parts to function, it is "irreducibly complex." Remove one part and the motor doesn't work. It is not the result of Darwinian evolution: a long slow unguided process of successive microscopic changes, by which unintelligent matter gives rise to intelligence with zero intelligent input. There is no proof of evolution in this sense, or evolution of the bacterical flagellum for that matter. Because of their purposeful and sophisticated feedback mechanisms, these designed systems also required forethought in the design process which is the power of an intelligent driving force.
There are specific features that cause us to recognize prior intelligent activity. The reliable, empirical and scientifically rigorous criteria that we employ are improbability (complexity) and specification (objective patterns). We conclude that what we observe is the product of intelligence when it meets the criterion of improbability and specification.
Only intelligence can produce highly organized information such as the English language. How much more sophisticated is DNA, hmm? There is nothing in the known universe that stores and processes more information as efficiently as the DNA molecule. Everything we know affirms that information transferring languages are the product of intelligence. The argument is not based on what we don't know; it is based on what we know.
We know that there is no natural cause that produces an information transferring language. Not natural selection, not self organizational processes and not pure chance. Yet we know that intelligence produces these kinds of sophisticated systems, but human intelligence has quite a ways to go before it can match the ultra-sophisticated DNA/RNA system. These aren't God's gaps, they are Darwinist's Gaps.
When we infer design from the presence of information in DNA we are making an inference to the best explanation. Intelligent causes are real and they leave evidence of their existence. We arrive at this conclusion based on the scientific foundations of inference and deductive reasoning.
On December 11 2007 07:41 TesisMech wrote: this is tipical and evolution is not a fact no matter how many post you say it is, its just a theory like many others.
But the bible is not even that. You can chose to believe it, but it is based on _no_ facts at all. A lot of the theory of evolution can be proven, so it is a much stronger base for belif than the bible.
EDIT: Sorry, I should have said that better. The theory of evolution can be based on experiments we can create (splitting populations, pairing different species, placing species outside their usual "home", etc), and this can be combined with studies of species and how they have changed over the years and thus we have a strong case for the whole theory of evolution.
On December 11 2007 07:41 TesisMech wrote: this is tipical and evolution is not a fact no matter how many post you say it is, its just a theory like many others.
But the bible is not even that. You can chose to believe it, but it is based on _no_ facts at all. A lot of the theory of evolution can be proven, so it is a much stronger base for belif than the bible.
edit: nvm Its been many debates about this and i dont want to start again in attacking those "facts" you call of evolution
On December 11 2007 07:41 TesisMech wrote: this is tipical and evolution is not a fact no matter how many post you say it is, its just a theory like many others.
Again, you have no idea what a scientific theory is.
On December 11 2007 07:49 TesisMech wrote: ill leave you guys with something to discuss. + Show Spoiler +
Hypothesis: Irreducibly complex systems of advanced functional complexity are the product of design.
Prediction: ID predicts that anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics which are measurable in terms of complexity, objective patterns and functional complexity.
Mechanism: The mechanism of Intelligent Design is "design," the means by which engineers build sophisticated systems. Design is a tool in the toolkit of the designer. We can say that "design" is driven by intelligence, like "natural selection" is driven by the environment. Look up the synonyms for design and there is no contradiction, they fit quite plainly for those who understand the English language. Mechanism... synonym: means. Method. System. Procedure. A finch's beak adapts to the environment by changing it's shape/size by the mechanism of "natural selection." (Darwinists call it evolution, it is adaptation)
The rigorous criteria of the scientific method:
1. Formulate an hypothesis, make a prediction. 2. Design an experiment to test the hypothesis. 3. Observe the experiment and produce data. 4. Repeat the experiment. Verify repeatability.
To test the ID hypothesis we utilize the scientific method as follows:
1. Irreducibly complex systems of advanced functional complexity are the product of design. Anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics. 2. Employ the Explanatory filter: a three stage flow chart, a classic method of induction/deduction for detecting design. 3. Observe tests of known designed systems/objects and *non-designed artifacts of nature. 4. The test is repeatable and verifiable.
*non-designed artifacts: There were formative rocks that we observed spewing out of Mount St. Helens in the form of lava. These young rocks are clearly not the direct work of an intelligent agent. We could use one of those rocks. Or maybe another rock of your choice. We observe crystals "growing" which embody complexity and objective patterns, some might argue that a crystal even contains rudimentary information. We could use one of those crystals.
ID predicts that anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics. When you run a "snow flake" through the "Explanatory Filter" the results tell us that the snow flake was not designed. Put a "simple cell" (as Darwin put it) in the "Explanatory Filter" and the results tell us that the "simple cell" was designed. Evolutionists have difficulty with this because they are emotionally attached to evolution, Darwin is their prophet and Nature is their God.
Scientists assert that design is detectable in "molecular machines," like the bacterial flagellum (there are thousands of such examples.) We observe that this tiny motor needs all of its parts to function, it is "irreducibly complex." Remove one part and the motor doesn't work. It is not the result of Darwinian evolution: a long slow unguided process of successive microscopic changes, by which unintelligent matter gives rise to intelligence with zero intelligent input. There is no proof of evolution in this sense, or evolution of the bacterical flagellum for that matter. Because of their purposeful and sophisticated feedback mechanisms, these designed systems also required forethought in the design process which is the power of an intelligent driving force.
There are specific features that cause us to recognize prior intelligent activity. The reliable, empirical and scientifically rigorous criteria that we employ are improbability (complexity) and specification (objective patterns). We conclude that what we observe is the product of intelligence when it meets the criterion of improbability and specification.
Only intelligence can produce highly organized information such as the English language. How much more sophisticated is DNA, hmm? There is nothing in the known universe that stores and processes more information as efficiently as the DNA molecule. Everything we know affirms that information transferring languages are the product of intelligence. The argument is not based on what we don't know; it is based on what we know.
We know that there is no natural cause that produces an information transferring language. Not natural selection, not self organizational processes and not pure chance. Yet we know that intelligence produces these kinds of sophisticated systems, but human intelligence has quite a ways to go before it can match the ultra-sophisticated DNA/RNA system. These aren't God's gaps, they are Darwinist's Gaps.
When we infer design from the presence of information in DNA we are making an inference to the best explanation. Intelligent causes are real and they leave evidence of their existence. We arrive at this conclusion based on the scientific foundations of inference and deductive reasoning.
Was that Behe or Dembski? It doesn't really matter, they're both idiots.
On December 11 2007 07:49 TesisMech wrote: ill leave you guys with something to discuss. + Show Spoiler +
Scientists assert that design is detectable in "molecular machines," like the bacterial flagellum (there are thousands of such examples.) We observe that this tiny motor needs all of its parts to function, it is "irreducibly complex." Remove one part and the motor doesn't work. It is not the result of Darwinian evolution: a long slow unguided process of successive microscopic changes, by which unintelligent matter gives rise to intelligence with zero intelligent input. There is no proof of evolution in this sense, or evolution of the bacterical flagellum for that matter. Because of their purposeful and sophisticated feedback mechanisms, these designed systems also required forethought in the design process which is the power of an intelligent driving force.
This was addressed shortly in the video I posted. They've actually found that another mechanism, on the organism that causes the plague, is similar to "tail" part found on the bacterial flagellum.
I see the concept of "irreducibly complex" as one of the biggest cop outs in "science", there are many things we don't understand, but we should never label something impossible to understand. Think about it and see if it seems foolish to you, should we base a theory on the creation of life on a LACK of evidence?
Galileo opposed geocentricism, pushed for the acceptance of Copernicanism, and was ostracized for it.
My point is this: personal beliefs are not inherently correct or incorrect. Firing him because of his personal beliefs is discrimination. They can say that it negatively impacted his job, but the simple fact of the matter is that researcher bias is a controllable confounding variable. Saying his beliefs negatively impacted his job is asinine.
Or maybe they really should lose federal funding since they don't allow diversity.
On December 11 2007 07:49 TesisMech wrote: ill leave you guys with something to discuss. + Show Spoiler +
Hypothesis: Irreducibly complex systems of advanced functional complexity are the product of design.
Prediction: ID predicts that anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics which are measurable in terms of complexity, objective patterns and functional complexity.
Mechanism: The mechanism of Intelligent Design is "design," the means by which engineers build sophisticated systems. Design is a tool in the toolkit of the designer. We can say that "design" is driven by intelligence, like "natural selection" is driven by the environment. Look up the synonyms for design and there is no contradiction, they fit quite plainly for those who understand the English language. Mechanism... synonym: means. Method. System. Procedure. A finch's beak adapts to the environment by changing it's shape/size by the mechanism of "natural selection." (Darwinists call it evolution, it is adaptation)
The rigorous criteria of the scientific method:
1. Formulate an hypothesis, make a prediction. 2. Design an experiment to test the hypothesis. 3. Observe the experiment and produce data. 4. Repeat the experiment. Verify repeatability.
To test the ID hypothesis we utilize the scientific method as follows:
1. Irreducibly complex systems of advanced functional complexity are the product of design. Anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics. 2. Employ the Explanatory filter: a three stage flow chart, a classic method of induction/deduction for detecting design. 3. Observe tests of known designed systems/objects and *non-designed artifacts of nature. 4. The test is repeatable and verifiable.
*non-designed artifacts: There were formative rocks that we observed spewing out of Mount St. Helens in the form of lava. These young rocks are clearly not the direct work of an intelligent agent. We could use one of those rocks. Or maybe another rock of your choice. We observe crystals "growing" which embody complexity and objective patterns, some might argue that a crystal even contains rudimentary information. We could use one of those crystals.
ID predicts that anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics. When you run a "snow flake" through the "Explanatory Filter" the results tell us that the snow flake was not designed. Put a "simple cell" (as Darwin put it) in the "Explanatory Filter" and the results tell us that the "simple cell" was designed. Evolutionists have difficulty with this because they are emotionally attached to evolution, Darwin is their prophet and Nature is their God.
Scientists assert that design is detectable in "molecular machines," like the bacterial flagellum (there are thousands of such examples.) We observe that this tiny motor needs all of its parts to function, it is "irreducibly complex." Remove one part and the motor doesn't work. It is not the result of Darwinian evolution: a long slow unguided process of successive microscopic changes, by which unintelligent matter gives rise to intelligence with zero intelligent input. There is no proof of evolution in this sense, or evolution of the bacterical flagellum for that matter. Because of their purposeful and sophisticated feedback mechanisms, these designed systems also required forethought in the design process which is the power of an intelligent driving force.
There are specific features that cause us to recognize prior intelligent activity. The reliable, empirical and scientifically rigorous criteria that we employ are improbability (complexity) and specification (objective patterns). We conclude that what we observe is the product of intelligence when it meets the criterion of improbability and specification.
Only intelligence can produce highly organized information such as the English language. How much more sophisticated is DNA, hmm? There is nothing in the known universe that stores and processes more information as efficiently as the DNA molecule. Everything we know affirms that information transferring languages are the product of intelligence. The argument is not based on what we don't know; it is based on what we know.
We know that there is no natural cause that produces an information transferring language. Not natural selection, not self organizational processes and not pure chance. Yet we know that intelligence produces these kinds of sophisticated systems, but human intelligence has quite a ways to go before it can match the ultra-sophisticated DNA/RNA system. These aren't God's gaps, they are Darwinist's Gaps.
When we infer design from the presence of information in DNA we are making an inference to the best explanation. Intelligent causes are real and they leave evidence of their existence. We arrive at this conclusion based on the scientific foundations of inference and deductive reasoning.
Was that Behe or Dembski? It doesn't really matter, they're both idiots.
Yes, agreed. Any "science" they have done regarding evolutionary theory is either non-existent in actual journals or has been instantly refuted upon publication (embarassingly so). They must believe their crap or are trying to get famous by finding their niche outside of science. ugh anyways... maybe science is still understood in some countries.
On December 11 2007 08:00 Mayson wrote: Galileo opposed geocentricism, pushed for the acceptance of Copernicanism, and was ostracized for it.
My point is this: personal beliefs are not inherently correct or incorrect. Firing him because of his personal beliefs is discrimination. They can say that it negatively impacted his job, but the simple fact of the matter is that researcher bias is a controllable confounding variable. Saying his beliefs negatively impacted his job is asinine.
Or maybe they really should lose federal funding since they don't allow diversity.
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.
On December 11 2007 08:00 Mayson wrote: Galileo opposed geocentricism, pushed for the acceptance of Copernicanism, and was ostracized for it.
My point is this: personal beliefs are not inherently correct or incorrect. Firing him because of his personal beliefs is discrimination. They can say that it negatively impacted his job, but the simple fact of the matter is that researcher bias is a controllable confounding variable. Saying his beliefs negatively impacted his job is asinine.
Or maybe they really should lose federal funding since they don't allow diversity.
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.
Fair enough. Maybe there's some extenuating circumstances I wasn't aware of. I personally don't think one must agree with the research they're working with in order to perform their job efficiently.
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.
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.
On the whole debate - the theory of evolution is pretty much accepted by now, and I believe that it should be because it is a very good theory. But if I was a believer, I would point out that there must have been some divine intervention to get the whole thing started - creating organic life from non-organic materials is pretty amazing.
I documented an instance of evolution working in a lab I was in. It was a mutation that allowed an organism to survive while growing in the presence of methanol. A really simple mutation, but one that meets all the requirements of evolution.
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.
We know that At least I do.
Assuming you are a Christian, how do you feel about other Christians refusing things like evolution and even arguing that it should not be taught in school?
On December 11 2007 08:42 ToKoreaWithLove wrote: On the whole debate - the theory of evolution is pretty much accepted by now, and I believe that it should be because it is a very good theory. But if I was a believer, I would point out that there must have been some divine intervention to get the whole thing started - creating organic life from non-organic materials is pretty amazing.
Abiogenesis does not say that life originated directly from inorganic molecules, in fact it postulates that life arose from organic molecules. The inorganic molecule -> organic molecule transition isn't very interesting, since it can be done rather simply in a lab, it's the organic molecules -> life thing that is currently controversial. :3
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.
It depends. But first of all, by strong Christians, does that mean they take the bible literally? Otherwise it seems to be meaningless, and I don't think many people here think that religion necessarily makes one bad for a scientific job.
Anyone who does, or believes evolution is not true because of God, obviously can run into problems in evolutionary based work. Evolution is not always just a theory describing the history of life that has no actionable work; a lot can be gained by it's application in a very practical sense. Doing chemical work, even if it were involved in a project to date fossils for the purpose of evolutionary data, would not be affected at all.
On December 11 2007 08:42 ToKoreaWithLove wrote: On the whole debate - the theory of evolution is pretty much accepted by now, and I believe that it should be because it is a very good theory. But if I was a believer, I would point out that there must have been some divine intervention to get the whole thing started - creating organic life from non-organic materials is pretty amazing.
Abiogenesis does not say that life originated directly from inorganic molecules, in fact it postulates that life arose from organic molecules. The inorganic molecule -> organic molecule transition isn't very interesting, since it can be done rather simply in a lab, it's the organic molecules -> life thing that is currently controversial. :3
Ah, but my point was more that the fact that the right molecules were at the right place at the right time and thus began life, in a very different, very hostile nature comparet to what we have today.
Boss of Christian "I want to you to do a genome wide comparison between Organism A with the NCBI database and the deliver a report on the evolutionary history of organism A's metabolism.
Christian "Umm sir... I don't believe in evolution."
Boss of Christian "Ahahhahaha good one, now hop to it."
Christian "Umm sir... I reaaaly don't believe in evolution."
On December 11 2007 08:02 dronebabo wrote: [quote] because you never did
I know I asked you in person. You must not remember.
you probably just made up the memory because you really wanted it to be true, but in actuality it just never happened
No way. You probably just repressed the memory because you want it to be false, but in actuality it just happened...
i know that to be false, so it is accepted that i am telling the truth here
Calm down guys, it was probably an act of God.
or maybe the statement magically create itself in a explosion of verbs and nouns.
epic fail
I agree there is not enough proof to conclude this.
Therefore, it was an act of God. Case closed blasphemers.
Im just saying it must had involved an intelligent designer that made the statement. it couldnt magically made itself. edit:OK this is getting pretty stupid
Nobody is telling you Europeans that you can't languish in your cynicism. By all means, go ahead.
The issue here is that an American was fired because of his religious beliefs. I personally don't happen to agree with this man's assertion that evolution is not a viable theory, but it is unlawful in our country to require that he believe in said theory to maintain his employment.
I find it somewhat ironic that many Europeans seem to be so outraged by the notion that illogical religious beliefs are protected by law. Look at the disgusting injustices that are perpetrated within your countries' borders in the name of Islam. Why do your courts accept the abuse of women as "religious freedom"? It might be better to make sure your own house is in order before criticizing others'.
On December 11 2007 09:18 Polar wrote: Nobody is telling you Europeans that you can't languish in your cynicism. By all means, go ahead.
The issue here is that an American was fired because of his religious beliefs. I personally don't happen to agree with this man's assertion that evolution is not a viable theory, but it is unlawful in our country to require that he believe in said theory to maintain his employment.
I find it somewhat ironic that many Europeans seem to be so outraged by the notion that illogical religious beliefs are protected by law. Look at the disgusting injustices that are perpetrated within your countries' borders in the name of Islam. Why do your courts accept the abuse of women as "religious freedom"? It might be better to make sure your own house is in order before criticizing others'.
I like how you're trying to appear superior and everything, but really, Americans really shouldn't be trumping their civil rights in front of most European countries.
On December 11 2007 09:18 Polar wrote: Nobody is telling you Europeans that you can't languish in your cynicism. By all means, go ahead.
The issue here is that an American was fired because of his religious beliefs. I personally don't happen to agree with this man's assertion that evolution is not a viable theory, but it is unlawful in our country to require that he believe in said theory to maintain his employment.
I find it somewhat ironic that many Europeans seem to be so outraged by the notion that illogical religious beliefs are protected by law. Look at the disgusting injustices that are perpetrated within your countries' borders in the name of Islam. Why do your courts accept the abuse of women as "religious freedom"? It might be better to make sure your own house is in order before criticizing others'.
he wasnt fired for his religious beliefs,
He could be an "atheist" and not believe in evolution however unlikely that may be and hed have gotten fired.
(...)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.
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.
Abraham said this condition was never spelled out in the advertisement for the job(...)
The whole case depends on who is right here. If he was willing to work with evolution he is right, if he was not then he is wrong.
On December 11 2007 09:18 Polar wrote: Nobody is telling you Europeans that you can't languish in your cynicism. By all means, go ahead.
The issue here is that an American was fired because of his religious beliefs. I personally don't happen to agree with this man's assertion that evolution is not a viable theory, but it is unlawful in our country to require that he believe in said theory to maintain his employment.
I find it somewhat ironic that many Europeans seem to be so outraged by the notion that illogical religious beliefs are protected by law. Look at the disgusting injustices that are perpetrated within your countries' borders in the name of Islam. Why do your courts accept the abuse of women as "religious freedom"? It might be better to make sure your own house is in order before criticizing others'.
he wasnt fired for his religious beliefs,
He could be an "atheist" and not believe in evolution however unlikely that may be and hed have gotten fired.
It's about precedent, If you're a member of a legitimate, established religion and are following the doctrines of that religion, you can't be legally discriminated against within reason. Obviously if you claim to be an adherent of some religion whose god demands daily human sacrifices, you will not be taken seriously.
That was not the case here. This guy's beliefs dictate the way he reacts to the theory of evolution and his reaction doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't happen to agree with his reaction, but such is life.
If you don't like the fact that religious freedom and expression is mandated in the constitution, move to France.
If you refuse to work you will be fired. It's pretty simple. I would not be fired from McDonald's for being a vegan, but I would be fired for refusing to touch meat at McDonald's - it's the same thing.
Either his previous boss is a jerk or he is just throwing the descrimination card to get some money.
On December 11 2007 09:18 Polar wrote: Nobody is telling you Europeans that you can't languish in your cynicism. By all means, go ahead.
The issue here is that an American was fired because of his religious beliefs. I personally don't happen to agree with this man's assertion that evolution is not a viable theory, but it is unlawful in our country to require that he believe in said theory to maintain his employment.
I find it somewhat ironic that many Europeans seem to be so outraged by the notion that illogical religious beliefs are protected by law. Look at the disgusting injustices that are perpetrated within your countries' borders in the name of Islam. Why do your courts accept the abuse of women as "religious freedom"? It might be better to make sure your own house is in order before criticizing others'.
I like how you're trying to appear superior and everything, but really, Americans really shouldn't be trumping their civil rights in front of most European countries.
Nice edit...
Anyways, do you know what "trumping" means? Evidently not. I'll just replace it with another word that actually conveys what I think you're trying to say. Maybe, "flaunting" would work?
In fact, I think Americans have quite a bit to "flaunt" when it comes to civil liberties. First and foremost, I would say that not having 50%+ of our salaries "appropriated" by our government is a nice perk. I also like the fact that we have freedom of speech in a much truer sense than most European countries (go to Germany, give a speech saying that 5,800,000 Jews died in the Holocaust in lieu of the mandated 6,000,000 and see what happens). What are the laws controlling gun ownership like over there?
On December 11 2007 09:33 ToKoreaWithLove wrote: If you refuse to work you will be fired. It's pretty simple. I would not be fired from McDonald's for being a vegan, but I would be fired for refusing to touch meat at McDonald's - it's the same thing.
Either his previous boss is a jerk or he is just throwing the descrimination card to get some money.
You just quoted him saying that he was not adverse to conducting research testing evolutionary theory... Obviously if this is false, he has no case. If it's accurate, he most certainly does.
He was probably fired because his religious convictions interfere with the clear bias-free scientific way of thinking. We should not use our religious,economical,racial,etc biases in a scientific research.
If he was a racists and did a research on racial differences he would be fired as well for BIAS.
He believes in creation therefore he is prone to twisting the facts to further push his agenda.
He is not in the biology field to contribute or help expand the scientific knowledge of biology. He is there to push his Creationists agenda.
On December 11 2007 09:18 Polar wrote: Nobody is telling you Europeans that you can't languish in your cynicism. By all means, go ahead.
The issue here is that an American was fired because of his religious beliefs. I personally don't happen to agree with this man's assertion that evolution is not a viable theory, but it is unlawful in our country to require that he believe in said theory to maintain his employment.
I find it somewhat ironic that many Europeans seem to be so outraged by the notion that illogical religious beliefs are protected by law. Look at the disgusting injustices that are perpetrated within your countries' borders in the name of Islam. Why do your courts accept the abuse of women as "religious freedom"? It might be better to make sure your own house is in order before criticizing others'.
he wasnt fired for his religious beliefs,
He could be an "atheist" and not believe in evolution however unlikely that may be and hed have gotten fired.
It's about precedent, If you're a member of a legitimate, established religion and are following the doctrines of that religion, you can't be legally discriminated against within reason. Obviously if you claim to be an adherent of some religion whose god demands daily human sacrifices, you will not be taken seriously.
That was not the case here. This guy's beliefs dictate the way he reacts to the theory of evolution and his reaction doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't happen to agree with his reaction, but such is life.
If you don't like the fact that religious freedom and expression is mandated in the constitution, move to France.
1. It hurt his employer. 2. The Bill of Rights is a contract between the government and its people, not between the people themselves.
On December 11 2007 09:33 ToKoreaWithLove wrote: If you refuse to work you will be fired. It's pretty simple. I would not be fired from McDonald's for being a vegan, but I would be fired for refusing to touch meat at McDonald's - it's the same thing.
Either his previous boss is a jerk or he is just throwing the descrimination card to get some money.
You just quoted him saying that he was not adverse to conducting research testing evolutionary theory... Obviously if this is false, he has no case. If it's accurate, he most certainly does.
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.
On December 11 2007 09:18 Polar wrote: Nobody is telling you Europeans that you can't languish in your cynicism. By all means, go ahead.
The issue here is that an American was fired because of his religious beliefs. I personally don't happen to agree with this man's assertion that evolution is not a viable theory, but it is unlawful in our country to require that he believe in said theory to maintain his employment.
I find it somewhat ironic that many Europeans seem to be so outraged by the notion that illogical religious beliefs are protected by law. Look at the disgusting injustices that are perpetrated within your countries' borders in the name of Islam. Why do your courts accept the abuse of women as "religious freedom"? It might be better to make sure your own house is in order before criticizing others'.
he wasnt fired for his religious beliefs,
He could be an "atheist" and not believe in evolution however unlikely that may be and hed have gotten fired.
It's about precedent, If you're a member of a legitimate, established religion and are following the doctrines of that religion, you can't be legally discriminated against within reason. Obviously if you claim to be an adherent of some religion whose god demands daily human sacrifices, you will not be taken seriously.
That was not the case here. This guy's beliefs dictate the way he reacts to the theory of evolution and his reaction doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't happen to agree with his reaction, but such is life.
If you don't like the fact that religious freedom and expression is mandated in the constitution, move to France.
1. It hurt his employer. 2. The Bill of Rights is a contract between the government and its people, not between the people themselves.
If you're a biologist and don't believe in evolution you aren't a biologist... evolution is the fundamental central theme to all of biology. This is ridiculous that this is even a topic or an argument.
How can you take all those biology courses to become a biologist and not believe in evolution when every single course requires you to accept evolution? I don't understand why someone would want to do that.
On December 11 2007 09:18 Polar wrote: Nobody is telling you Europeans that you can't languish in your cynicism. By all means, go ahead.
The issue here is that an American was fired because of his religious beliefs. I personally don't happen to agree with this man's assertion that evolution is not a viable theory, but it is unlawful in our country to require that he believe in said theory to maintain his employment.
I find it somewhat ironic that many Europeans seem to be so outraged by the notion that illogical religious beliefs are protected by law. Look at the disgusting injustices that are perpetrated within your countries' borders in the name of Islam. Why do your courts accept the abuse of women as "religious freedom"? It might be better to make sure your own house is in order before criticizing others'.
he wasnt fired for his religious beliefs,
He could be an "atheist" and not believe in evolution however unlikely that may be and hed have gotten fired.
It's about precedent, If you're a member of a legitimate, established religion and are following the doctrines of that religion, you can't be legally discriminated against within reason. Obviously if you claim to be an adherent of some religion whose god demands daily human sacrifices, you will not be taken seriously.
That was not the case here. This guy's beliefs dictate the way he reacts to the theory of evolution and his reaction doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't happen to agree with his reaction, but such is life.
If you don't like the fact that religious freedom and expression is mandated in the constitution, move to France.
1. It hurt his employer. 2. The Bill of Rights is a contract between the government and its people, not between the people themselves.
This was a government funded project...
His presence would probably ruin the working environment. Fellow scientists would have given him a hard time at work...maybe. It's probably best for him to be fired. It saved him a great deal of "emotional pain, suffering and mental anguish."
On December 11 2007 09:33 ToKoreaWithLove wrote: If you refuse to work you will be fired. It's pretty simple. I would not be fired from McDonald's for being a vegan, but I would be fired for refusing to touch meat at McDonald's - it's the same thing.
Either his previous boss is a jerk or he is just throwing the descrimination card to get some money.
Shit--I think I misunderstood the article.
I thought he was fired for making his point of view clear, rather than being fired for refusing to do his job because of his point of view.
You are all missing the point. If this guy is truly unqualified he will be outed as such by his co-workers. You don't need to fire the guy to show him that he's wrong.
On December 11 2007 09:18 Polar wrote: Nobody is telling you Europeans that you can't languish in your cynicism. By all means, go ahead.
The issue here is that an American was fired because of his religious beliefs. I personally don't happen to agree with this man's assertion that evolution is not a viable theory, but it is unlawful in our country to require that he believe in said theory to maintain his employment.
I find it somewhat ironic that many Europeans seem to be so outraged by the notion that illogical religious beliefs are protected by law. Look at the disgusting injustices that are perpetrated within your countries' borders in the name of Islam. Why do your courts accept the abuse of women as "religious freedom"? It might be better to make sure your own house is in order before criticizing others'.
he wasnt fired for his religious beliefs,
He could be an "atheist" and not believe in evolution however unlikely that may be and hed have gotten fired.
It's about precedent, If you're a member of a legitimate, established religion and are following the doctrines of that religion, you can't be legally discriminated against within reason. Obviously if you claim to be an adherent of some religion whose god demands daily human sacrifices, you will not be taken seriously.
That was not the case here. This guy's beliefs dictate the way he reacts to the theory of evolution and his reaction doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't happen to agree with his reaction, but such is life.
If you don't like the fact that religious freedom and expression is mandated in the constitution, move to France.
1. It hurt his employer. 2. The Bill of Rights is a contract between the government and its people, not between the people themselves.
This was a government funded project...
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is private.
Yes they receive some federal funding, and if they had fired this guy for religious beliefs that did not affect his work I would agree that either they were wrong or that the government should stop funding them. However, this was not the case.
On December 11 2007 09:54 Polar wrote: You are all missing the point. If this guy is truly unqualified he will be outed as such by his co-workers. You don't need to fire the guy to show him that he's wrong.
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.
Well, your personal beliefs don't necessarily detract from your ability to perform a given job. I don't see anything wrong with holding a specific belief, whether it's a minority belief or otherwise. Just don't refuse to do your job, and then act confused when you get fired.
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 was..rather incoherant. Thought Jyvblow's point of view is the same as yours (from what I piece together from your post)
This is just my opinion: Given he now teaches biology at Liberty University, I would seriously doubt his scientific credentials. Note this is not just because he teaches at Liberty University, certain fields of study rely more on scientific methods than others, and biology, a field in dispute between the faithful and not, at a faith-oriented institution rings a couple alarm bells.
On December 11 2007 09:54 Polar wrote: You are all missing the point. If this guy is truly unqualified he will be outed as such by his co-workers. You don't need to fire the guy to show him that he's wrong.
True, you can't question his qualification. But when a worker may become a source of distraction for his co-workers, then he/she might be legitimately fired.
Quick example: At my college, there is this guy who stinks; he does not take showers. He's intelligent, hard-working... but he really stinks. When we are in the lab, the smell just disturbs everyone. And we would be more productive if he was not here. (true story)
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.
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...
Einstein has said on numerous occasions and in numerous letters to colleagues and ministers that he doesn't believe in any kind of 'personal god.' In fact, Richard Dawkins has devoted entire chapters in his books to clarifying the misconstruction that anyone who uses the term 'God' is referring to an omniscient, human-like entity.
Einstein's "God" is more like 'nature' or the 'core of the universe,' or some other wishy-washy term that it's hard to put one's finger on. Most atheists are very spiritual people, they're just not superstitious. And on the subject of fairies, I haven't seen any evidence of one yet, so I'm assuming they don't exist; to me the notion is preposterous. However, it's not to say I completely reject it as a possibility. I know that if I saw real, verifiable evidence of (FAIRY GOD PARENTS!!!11oneone) then I would change my beliefs.
What would it take to make me believe in God? Well, for the almighty omniscient, omnipotent master of the universe it wouldn't be too tough...
I think the most interesting aspect of the evolution debate is what provided the "spark" or catalyst for the creation of the universe. Some have been able to give mathematical interpretations of how the universe began, but there needs to be something to ignite the reaction.
On December 11 2007 10:29 Polar wrote: I think the most interesting aspect of the evolution debate is what provided the "spark" or catalyst for the creation of the universe. Some have been able to give mathematical interpretations of how the universe began, but there needs to be something to ignite the reaction.
This just in! Creation of the Universe is now Biology!!!!
By the way, I agree with why he was fired. A creationist has no place in Biology. Doesn't matter what kind of biology.
On December 11 2007 10:14 SirKibbleX wrote: ...In fact, Richard Dawkins has devoted entire chapters in his books to clarifying the misconstruction that anyone who uses the term 'God' is referring to an omniscient, human-like entity...
Dawkins gets cited a lot around here to verify all sorts of bizarre claims; I would appreciate if you please clarify this one. You might have just messed up the grammar here and really meant to say that Dawkins clarifies that Einstein never refers to God as a personal entity; if Dawkins really did state that no one using the term is referring to such an entity, however, then please do explain. Perhaps you're saying that Dawkins has "demonstrated" that the theistic use of the term "God" is actually without any content, and not simply because it refers to something that does not exist, but rather because its definition is contradictory. That's an old claim, and heavily contested; Dawkins isn't really the expert on that issue. If you meant something else, I'm curious.
ok...
As for this topic: Well I don't think it's fair to fire anyone and everyone working in biology who refuses to accept evolution as a "fact"; but to do it because "God says he did it in 6 days" or whatever is obviously going to lead one into a big mess of trouble; one can't simply do biology without the context of evolutionary theory. It simply doesn't make sense anymore in light of the wealth of evidence that we have.
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. :/
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.
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.
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.
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 10:43 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.
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.
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 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 10:48 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 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 10:48 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?
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 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 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 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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
On December 11 2007 09:33 ToKoreaWithLove wrote: If you refuse to work you will be fired. It's pretty simple. I would not be fired from McDonald's for being a vegan, but I would be fired for refusing to touch meat at McDonald's - it's the same thing.
Either his previous boss is a jerk or he is just throwing the descrimination card to get some money.
You just quoted him saying that he was not adverse to conducting research testing evolutionary theory... Obviously if this is false, he has no case. If it's accurate, he most certainly does.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!!
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?
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.
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!!
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 ?
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?
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.
That a number of scientists believe in a god is a given. However, I certainly haven't seen any respectable ones who have endorsed creationism lately.
EDIT: Well, unless Kent Hovind can be considered a respectable scientist. I mean, he does have three degrees in Christian education from unaccredited universities, and he did teach for 15 years... at a Christian school that he founded himself.
This, of course, was all before he went to jail for tax evasion. He's not a very good Christian if you ask me. "Render unto Caesar..." and all that, you know?
I just don't seem to understand why someone would believe that God created nature just because nature is awesome. There are a million possible explanations, with the one holding the most evidence and explaining/predicting the most is evolution.
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.
There's no way evolution can be applied to research. It's just a theory. Not fact.
This is incorrect. It is used all the time in genome sequencing to help identify genes that encode proteins. This is one of the ways Craig Venter became the first to sequence the genome, making him worth about 40 billion. There are other applications as well. Many more if you include the rapid mutation of viruses and bacteria, but I think you just meant things involving evolutionary history built around evolutionary theory.
He was fired for the same reason a Muslim orthodox girl can't be a supermodel.
Do you think that it would be right for that girl to then sue the company for discriminating her just because she were a Muslim? Because, really, neither she nor he in this thread were fired because of their beliefs, but instead fired because their beliefs interfered with their work.
You can't really deny evolution when you study microbiology. Since the cycles happens so fast there evolution takes only a few hours.
Another very strong proof of evolution is the hundreds of dog types we have today, they all origin from just a few dog types. It doesn't involve natural selection, but it certainly involve evolution and it shows how extremely fast big changes can happen if just the right selection mods are there. Then natural selection is extremely easy to proove, its simple probability math.
So, if he were a microbiologist denying evolution just a bit in any report will mean that he is unfit as hell for the job. If he were researching on how species are related to each other or how the features of each species might have appeared, then he too can't deny evolition or the whole field is useless.
Wow, regardless of whatever anyone believes, this is a really nasty situation for anyone to be involved in. Especially since it is government funded...don't know how we are going to get out of this one without someone being really ticked off...
On December 11 2007 09:33 ToKoreaWithLove wrote: If you refuse to work you will be fired. It's pretty simple. I would not be fired from McDonald's for being a vegan, but I would be fired for refusing to touch meat at McDonald's - it's the same thing.
Either his previous boss is a jerk or he is just throwing the descrimination card to get some money.
You just quoted him saying that he was not adverse to conducting research testing evolutionary theory... Obviously if this is false, he has no case. If it's accurate, he most certainly does.
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.
Either read what I write or don't bother quoting!
Don't pick something out of context and quote it, then say the exact same thing I said 3-4 pages further back based on the exact same words from the exact same article. If that is all you wanted to say it has already been said.
I don't really understand how people still refer to evolution as just a theory. Read the latest works of any serious Biologist...
The vatacin has acknowledged evoluton as more than just a theory. And the supreme court has ruled against creationism. I don't see the problem here... If you have a problem with these words, then go read the word in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins... Or if you're more interested in the evolution aspects... Read The Selfish Gene by him.
Evolution occurs. This is a fact. I personally documented an instance of evolution. I have induced cells to evolve.
Evolution Definition: Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.
I have my fingers crossed that this thread, will once and for all prove that God does or doesnt exist! Please guys, hurry up and come to a conclusion so I can know whether or not to be a religious person! AND so we can stop having the EXACT SAME debate on this forum bi-weekly!
It's not about forcing beliefs on someone else, but if you're going to represent a company as a biologist you must work out of the belief that evolution is real. At least if thats their demands. Can't do that? Sorry you're not fit for the job.
It's basically like working as a priest if you're a non-believer. Not too bright so to say.
Dont make up this bullshit about a "designer" since the designer would be far more complicated than us and then therefore would defy the idea of this "Designer" because of complexity.
Alright so the case here is that this man is a Christian and a Biologist. He gets fired for not believing in the Evolution theory when . Am i right? If so....
OK I'm going to say this right now. I dont want flames or arguements over what I am saying right now. But if you disagree then plz state it.
......I totally agree with what the man did. He shouldnt be forced to believe in anything he doesnt want to. He even agreed to use evolution concepts TO DO his job. I dont see any reason that he should be fired.....
First: This is the only forum/online discussion I went to that doesn't flames all Christians for "forcing Christianity down people's mouths."
Second: "Answers in Genesis" (leader: Ken Ham) defends Christianity using only solid, credible scientific evidence. His videos and DVD's are actually very interesting, and he uses logic and solid fact to make another statement, and another logical statement based on that, so on and so forth. If people REALLY want me to, I can type up like everything he says, which addresses questions such as "Where did fossils come from." I may not have the free time. BTW I'm one of those people who log on only like once a week or so. Sorry.
Lamark's/Darwin's evolution is not exactly an "undisputable scientific fact", it's simply the best theory up to date, however, there are many facts that slightly contradict it, so it's subject to development.
On December 12 2007 11:55 BLuEWS1 wrote: Woopie! My first post on TL.net!
First: This is the only forum/online discussion I went to that doesn't flames all Christians for "forcing Christianity down people's mouths."
Second: "Answers in Genesis" (leader: Ken Ham) defends Christianity using only solid, credible scientific evidence. His videos and DVD's are actually very interesting, and he uses logic and solid fact to make another statement, and another logical statement based on that, so on and so forth. If people REALLY want me to, I can type up like everything he says, which addresses questions such as "Where did fossils come from." I may not have the free time. BTW I'm one of those people who log on only like once a week or so. Sorry.
On December 12 2007 12:06 BluzMan wrote: Lamark's/Darwin's evolution is not exactly an "undisputable scientific fact", it's simply the best theory up to date, however, there are many facts that slightly contradict it, so it's subject to development.
Do not conflate Lamarck's erroneous hypotheses with the Evolutionary Theory which has stood the test of time. That you would conflate the two does not speak well of your knowledge of the subject.
If you have a "fact" that contradicts the Theory of Evolution, let us hear it.
On December 12 2007 11:55 BLuEWS1 wrote: Woopie! My first post on TL.net!
First: This is the only forum/online discussion I went to that doesn't flames all Christians for "forcing Christianity down people's mouths."
Second: "Answers in Genesis" (leader: Ken Ham) defends Christianity using only solid, credible scientific evidence. His videos and DVD's are actually very interesting, and he uses logic and solid fact to make another statement, and another logical statement based on that, so on and so forth. If people REALLY want me to, I can type up like everything he says, which addresses questions such as "Where did fossils come from." I may not have the free time. BTW I'm one of those people who log on only like once a week or so. Sorry.
On December 12 2007 11:55 BLuEWS1 wrote: Woopie! My first post on TL.net!
First: This is the only forum/online discussion I went to that doesn't flames all Christians for "forcing Christianity down people's mouths."
Second: "Answers in Genesis" (leader: Ken Ham) defends Christianity using only solid, credible scientific evidence. His videos and DVD's are actually very interesting, and he uses logic and solid fact to make another statement, and another logical statement based on that, so on and so forth. If people REALLY want me to, I can type up like everything he says, which addresses questions such as "Where did fossils come from." I may not have the free time. BTW I'm one of those people who log on only like once a week or so. Sorry.
That's the website. They have a pretty awesome museum to.
That was the worst site I've ever been to in my life.
I just hate how many creationists will insist they have evidence to support their theory but they all link the EXACT same stuff that has been refuted over and over again. If they feel that their arguments were wrongly refuted....well I would like to see a response about that...not just the same lies or fallacies.
On December 12 2007 11:55 BLuEWS1 wrote: Woopie! My first post on TL.net!
First: This is the only forum/online discussion I went to that doesn't flames all Christians for "forcing Christianity down people's mouths."
Second: "Answers in Genesis" (leader: Ken Ham) defends Christianity using only solid, credible scientific evidence. His videos and DVD's are actually very interesting, and he uses logic and solid fact to make another statement, and another logical statement based on that, so on and so forth. If people REALLY want me to, I can type up like everything he says, which addresses questions such as "Where did fossils come from." I may not have the free time. BTW I'm one of those people who log on only like once a week or so. Sorry.
It seems like so many people have difficulty understanding what a scientific theory is.
A theory is a model that aims to describe nature, and make predictions. Its doesn't have anything to do with God, just like a nickel doesn't have anything to do with a computer monitor. It is meaningless to say it proves/disproves God. Just like you can't equate a string with an int.
Evolution is no more atheist than math is. And its no more of fact than any other theory.
On December 12 2007 11:55 BLuEWS1 wrote: Woopie! My first post on TL.net!
First: This is the only forum/online discussion I went to that doesn't flames all Christians for "forcing Christianity down people's mouths."
Second: "Answers in Genesis" (leader: Ken Ham) defends Christianity using only solid, credible scientific evidence. His videos and DVD's are actually very interesting, and he uses logic and solid fact to make another statement, and another logical statement based on that, so on and so forth. If people REALLY want me to, I can type up like everything he says, which addresses questions such as "Where did fossils come from." I may not have the free time. BTW I'm one of those people who log on only like once a week or so. Sorry.
That's the website. They have a pretty awesome museum to.
Thanks, this site looks like it will provide hours of amusement. Of course it's pretty ridiculous and all Ken Ham does is talk about presuppositions on evidence every single time and never gives a real argument to support the issues he's supposed to be talking about.
On December 12 2007 11:55 BLuEWS1 wrote: Woopie! My first post on TL.net!
First: This is the only forum/online discussion I went to that doesn't flames all Christians for "forcing Christianity down people's mouths."
Second: "Answers in Genesis" (leader: Ken Ham) defends Christianity using only solid, credible scientific evidence. His videos and DVD's are actually very interesting, and he uses logic and solid fact to make another statement, and another logical statement based on that, so on and so forth. If people REALLY want me to, I can type up like everything he says, which addresses questions such as "Where did fossils come from." I may not have the free time. BTW I'm one of those people who log on only like once a week or so. Sorry.
That's the website. They have a pretty awesome museum to.
Just Wow. Ken Ham is my nr1 enemy and I can not describe how much I hate that clown and his "museum" thing. The day he dies I will celebrate. I just cant find words now, everytime I see the name Ken Ham or answersingenesis i TILT. I hope he gets some disease that requiers threathment with penecilin.
I think you should stop discussing peoples beliefs on this matter on this forum when Cow sets the tone in the first reply, calling the professor a retard.
People just don't understand each other on this matter and cannot be polite to each other (No, I'm not christian)
Edit: yea, Darwins theory isn't exactly undisputable and you people who actually don't even know in DETAIL what it's about shouldn't assume it is.
I'm not going through 11 pages but the core problem is very simple: Creationism is NOT a scientific approach at all (that's also the reason why it's INCREDIBLY stupid and damaging to try to teach it to kids in school as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution). A biologist who is also a creationist is bound to cause problems when it's about evolution. I'd have fired him too. Religion/belief has its place, but it must never interfere with science. The day religion becomes dominant over science or other things, we're back in the Middle Ages.
There are 2 facets to science in terms of how the concepts 'fact' and 'theory' interact.
1 facet is for non-scientists (ie. those who are distinctly anti-science as well as those who are just not involved/interested in science)
Basically for this group, science should be saying fact == theory == fact. All current popular scientific theories are facts and should be accepted as such, because they are the BEST ideas we have on how things are and give the greatest probability of being useful for prediction or engineering or any other application of science.
The other facet is for scientists and enthusiasts.
For this group, science says fact != theory != fact, because theories change, theories themselves evolve through the pressures of evidence and counter-evidence facilitated by journals, reports, conferences etc. The fundamental distinction between science and non-science is that science accepts improvements on itself and is willing to drop previously held theories in favour of something more useful.
So if youre a biologist who doesnt believe in evolution, thats fine. As long as none of your research is predicated on the assumption that creationism is an equally valid theory. On the other hand it wouldnt be so bad having a 100% critic in a research team because they would keep you on your toes, unless they just got preachy and disrupted morale.
Well facts also predict other facts A fact is essentially just a theory that has been extremely reliable and well tested. There is no real reason to distinguish the two, other than that difference. An extremely simplified example of a simple fact predicting other simple facts is the equation 1+1 equals 2. A fact correct? Well with that fact we can also state the fact that 1+1+1 = 3. And we can build from there until we have almost the entirety of our current understanding of physical mathetmatics Facts are mini theories in themselves.
On December 12 2007 20:39 vusak wrote: There are 2 facets to science in terms of how the concepts 'fact' and 'theory' interact.
1 facet is for non-scientists (ie. those who are distinctly anti-science as well as those who are just not involved/interested in science)
Basically for this group, science should be saying fact == theory == fact. All current popular scientific theories are facts and should be accepted as such, because they are the BEST ideas we have on how things are and give the greatest probability of being useful for prediction or engineering or any other application of science.
The other facet is for scientists and enthusiasts.
For this group, science says fact != theory != fact, because theories change, theories themselves evolve through the pressures of evidence and counter-evidence facilitated by journals, reports, conferences etc. The fundamental distinction between science and non-science is that science accepts improvements on itself and is willing to drop previously held theories in favour of something more useful.
So if youre a biologist who doesnt believe in evolution, thats fine. As long as none of your research is predicated on the assumption that creationism is an equally valid theory. On the other hand it wouldnt be so bad having a 100% critic in a research team because they would keep you on your toes, unless they just got preachy and disrupted morale.
Uhm, much like the Theory of Gravity, Evolution IS fact. The reason that it is called a Theory is because we don't completely understand every facet of evolution. We know that Evolution occurs, and it can be demonstrated by looking at any rapidly reproducing species. How do you think super resistant staph came into being?
Theory basically means that we know something happens or exists, but that not all of the underlying mechanisms have been discovered yet. For instance, you don't need to understand every part of the mechanical workings of your car engine in order for it to start. Just because it isn't understood doesn't make it magical.
If you are a biologist who doesn't believe in evolution, you are denying a very important piece of scientific fact that basically guarantees that you cannot work in microbiology. Many parts of the theory are in doubt, but not evolution itself.
On December 13 2007 00:41 EarthServant wrote: Uhm, much like the Theory of Gravity, Evolution IS fact.
This is absolutely wrong.
Let me tell you something about gravity. Its a theory. And its probably 90% wrong. All other theories in the past have been wrong. All of them.
I've been arguing this point since page 1. Perhaps you should look at the spoiler I left on that page.
As already pointed out, a scientific theory is a lot better than a scientific fact. The theory of evolution, though, is not fact. It ties together facts, makes predictions about them, and over time we have seen the theory to be very powerful and never refuted by any facts.
Saying evolution is probably 90% wrong seems kind of unfounded though. It's probably 90% right, as things like genetics and fossils have confirmed it. It is a fact that evolution happened and is happening. The exact theory is constantly being revised but evolution itself, however it is happening, clearly is happening and life on earth clearly has been going through this all the way back to single-celled organisms. This is fact, definitely not "probably 90% wrong" as you say.
On December 13 2007 00:41 EarthServant wrote: Uhm, much like the Theory of Gravity, Evolution IS fact.
This is absolutely wrong.
Let me tell you something about gravity. Its a theory. And its probably 90% wrong. All other theories in the past have been wrong. All of them.
I've been arguing this point since page 1. Perhaps you should look at the spoiler I left on that page.
You seem to just love pulling bullshit statistics out of your ass. I'd say you do it 97.365% of the time. There's a 3.259 % margin of error +/-.
It's not "absolutely" wrong at all. It's partially wrong at worst. There are aspects of both evolutionary theory and the theory of gravity that are absolutely facts(thats 100% fact, sense you seem to be incapable of communicating ideas outside of numeric %'s). Theories are constantly evolving. They are metaphorically "living". They are not "right" and "wrong" but merely reflect our current understanding of a topic. If new information is discovered, it is incorporated into the theory if the findings continue to support it. If the newly discovered information is found to be creditable and it does not fit into the current theory than the theory is completely restructured and/or abandoned. You're a complete fool if you think all theories of the past have been wrong. I don't see how you could possibly think that if you had any sense in you at all.
There is nothing about a "fact" that says it is unreviseable. This is merely fabricated by your own definitions of the word. One that others do not share with you. For hundreds of years neuton's theories were regarded as facts. However in the early 20th century physicists began to discover phenomenon that was not explained by the current neutonian theories. All the sudden the theories were no longer facts but they were not "wrong". They still applied in almost all situations except a very few that involved cosmological equations. This is of course referring to the theory of relativity and the special theory of relativity. The point is, the word fact is no different than saying an extremely well tested theory.
If you use the word fact to mean something that is unreviseably true, that will remain true forever, no matter what. Than we would be left with very few facts left in the world. None actually Especially if you consider how little we know about the universe compared to what could be known.
fight_or_flight, I suggest you stop starting petty superficial arguments based on the definitions of words and actually discuss something of substance. There is more to a subject than percentages.
I said probably 90% wrong, as in probably mostly wrong.
Anyway, it could be mostly fact and just changing, but if need be we should be able to completely discard it in favor of a different theory. Remember, 100 years ago gravity was a 'force'. Now its not...in another 100 years it could be something else.
On December 13 2007 01:30 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: fight_or_flight, I suggest you stop starting petty superficial arguments based on the definitions of words and actually discuss something of substance. There is more to a subject than percentages.
I used one pseudo-percentage in 10 pages. Anyway, I feel that scientific dogma is very bad, and when it occurs its bad for everybody.
On December 13 2007 01:41 fight_or_flight wrote: I said probably 90% wrong, as in probably mostly wrong.
Anyway, it could be mostly fact and just changing, but if need be we should be able to completely discard it in favor of a different theory. Remember, 100 years ago gravity was a 'force'. Now its not...in another 100 years it could be something else.
And where are you getting the 90% from? How are you calculating that probability? How are you calculating the >50% probability that you need to make the statement that the 90% is PROBABLY right? Can't you see how full of shit you sound? What about evolution makes it "probably" 90% wrong? Or wrong at all?
Yes as I said, neuton's theory has been revised. Mainly due to the discovery that light was being curved when passing near incredibly massive bodies (I believe it was a neutron star, a very massive but not very bright dying star, but I could be wrong on this detail). But guess what? Gravity is STILL A FORCE. Perhaps before you get all high and mighty and start trying to calculate the probability of evolution being correct you might actually want to get the basics down. You can start by learning what the definition of a force is, in physics. Here, I'll help.
In physics, force is that which can cause a mass to accelerate.
Does gravity cause mass to accelerate? Yes. It's a force.
On December 13 2007 01:30 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: fight_or_flight, I suggest you stop starting petty superficial arguments based on the definitions of words and actually discuss something of substance. There is more to a subject than percentages.
I used one pseudo-percentage in 10 pages. Anyway, I feel that scientific dogma is very bad, and when it occurs its bad for everybody.
Scientific dogma is an oxymoron. If someone is actually being scientific they will never be dogmatic. Science is based off evidence. Dogma plays no role in science.
Oh, and pseudo-percentage is an interesting way of saying "something I completely made up with no reasoning or solid grounds to back it up with".
On December 13 2007 01:30 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: fight_or_flight, I suggest you stop starting petty superficial arguments based on the definitions of words and actually discuss something of substance. There is more to a subject than percentages.
I used one pseudo-percentage in 10 pages. Anyway, I feel that scientific dogma is very bad, and when it occurs its bad for everybody.
Scientific dogma is an oxymoron. If someone is actually being scientific they will never be dogmatic. Science is based off evidence. Dogma plays no role in science.
Exactly, thats why its so bad.
Oh, and pseudo-percentage is an interesting way of saying "something I completely made up with no reasoning or solid grounds to back it up with".
Ah, I see you have a pet-peeve as well. Haha, now you know how i feel. Now what if I said to you that 92% of the posters in this thread only understand about 12% of what a theory is?
I'd say you're still an idiot who has offered not a single good reply to the long list of things I pointed out as complete bullshit in your statements. Cheers.
To answer your long list, a fact is not a well tested theory. Also, any theory that isn't "current" has been discarded. Which include all previous theories.
On a side note, ad hominem attacks are very bad for science as well.
Why is a fact not a well tested theory? Any theory that isn't current has not been "discarded" in many cases those theories are just simplified or incomplete versions of the current theory. Either way, if you would recall your statement, you said that "every theory has been wrong so far". Ad Hominem attacks are find if coupled with logical arguements because frankly you deserve the flames.
You are not answering my critiques, you are simply restating your opinion without evidence. Just as you have been doing all along.
On December 13 2007 02:45 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Why is a fact not a well tested theory?
Well a fact is more of an observation, while a theory is more of an interpretation.
Any theory that isn't current has not been "discarded" in many cases those theories are just simplified or incomplete versions of the current theory. Either way, if you would recall your statement, you said that "every theory has been wrong so far".
Well some theories are known to be wrong but still very useful. But they certainly aren't facts.
You are not answering my critiques, you are simply restating your opinion without evidence. Just as you have been doing all along.
Sorry, I've been writing too much in this thread, I think I'll stop soon.
Any theory that isn't current has not been "discarded" in many cases those theories are just simplified or incomplete versions of the current theory. Either way, if you would recall your statement, you said that "every theory has been wrong so far".
Well some theories are known to be wrong but still very useful. But they certainly aren't facts.
All other theories in the past have been wrong. All of them.
No, actually that is incorrect. All? Oh really? How many scientific theories have been overturned? Very very very few.
Let me tell you something about gravity. Its a theory. And its probably 90% wrong.
As opposed to Bell's theory of quantum mechanics which is 57.4% wrong? And could you kindly point out some holes in the theory of gravity? On what basis can you possibly say it is "probably 90% wrong".
Remember, 100 years ago gravity was a 'force'. Now its not
Umm... yes it is. How much has changed? Einstein refined the definition of gravity but that was about it. And before Einstein there was no theory defining gravity. Newton admitted that he had no idea what gravity was, only how it operated.
You are not answering my critiques, you are simply restating your opinion without evidence. Just as you have been doing all along.
qft
Honestly, attempting to argue against evolution is a massive waste of time. Evidence, or STFU. And since evidence is so titanically on the side of evolution it is really rather silly. There was a court case a couple years ago on whether intelligent design was science. Here are some quotes: + Show Spoiler +
Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community...
However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
triangle; actually the lot of scientific theories have been overturned. But that's the beauty of science.
The current understanding of gravity is probably wrong. But it's certainly "good enough" so to speak. Newton was wrong; but we still use his equations because they are so close to being correct that it doesn't matter. In the future, maybe Einstein will be proven wrong; but I don't think his equations will be considered obsolete because of that; because they are even closer than Newton's to being correct.
Despite the fact that some of our understanding of gravity is wrong, it doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. Particles are attracted to eachother -- this is fact, as is defined by BlackStar earlier:
A fact is a mere measurement, an experimental observation.
Despite the fact that we don't understand completely how it works doesn't change the fact that the attraction of particles exist.
Here is another fact:
Over time, populations adapt to their environment. or populations continuously genetically adapt to environmental change
We know that this happens. If it didn't, we easily wipe out every disease known to man. Bacteria would never develop resistance to our drugs, viruses (disputably alive, I admit) would be wiped out by our immune systems once and never be able to grab hold again, because they would not be able to change in order to attack again.
All people on the planet would be the same color, as it would be impossible for fairer skin to triumph in the northern climates, thus increasing Vitamin D production. All humans, sans special equipment, would live in equatorial climates only.
We KNOW these changes occur. The fact that genetic traits are passed on from generation to generation, and that successful traits are extended into the general population IS FACT, easily observed FACT.
All of the mechanisms that make it occur are much more complex, and that is why there is evolutionary theory. An entire branch of science is dedicated to it.
Also, I would agree that many scientific theories of the past have been rejected, with the caveat that all true modern theories (testable, observable, falsifiable), since the advent of modern scientific method from Popper & Kuhn, are extremely solid and are generally not challenged but modified. We are always making changes to the theory of evolution. But theory of evolution is how evolution works. This does not change the fact that evolution is an observable fact.
[edit: changed "modern scientific theory" to "modern scientific method", last paragraph]
actually the lot of scientific theories have been overturned.
Which ones? Theories may be modified, very rarely are they overturned. It takes a lot to be called a theory, that's a significant accomplishment.
The current understanding of gravity is probably wrong.
Not wrong, incomplete.
Newton was wrong; but we still use his equations because they are so close to being correct that it doesn't matter.
Again, Newton wasn't "wrong". His equations are perfectly valid in normal situations. Einstein more provided an "exceptions to the rule" than anything else. To say Newtonian theory was "wrong" is incorrect. It was just incomplete. The basic equations were sound.
In the case of evolution, there may be elements missing. But the underlying idea will probably never be overturned.
I can't say I've read much of this but I think it's the trend in science now to not call anything a law. Nothing can be proven, only further supported. This keeps science evolving and stops people from saying OMGZ YOUR LAWS ARE WRONG as a justification for beliefs that don't have much evidence. Everything is provisional... sometimes they become so well supported that it's almost a law just the same, but that technicality should keep science from becoming dogmatic.
On December 14 2007 07:44 Vi)Chris wrote: I can't say I've read much of this but I think it's the trend in science now to not call anything a law. Nothing can be proven, only further supported. This keeps science evolving and stops people from saying OMGZ YOUR LAWS ARE WRONG as a justification for beliefs that don't have much evidence. Everything is provisional... sometimes they become so well supported that it's almost a law just the same, but that technicality should keep science from becoming dogmatic.
That's the point, science isn't about absolute proof, it's always provisional, and contingent on new findings. That's why they have different definitions for "scientific law", "scientific fact", "scientific theory" than any of those words mean in plain speech. When people mix the two they betray an utter lack of familiarity with science and what it is and isn't. In science, for instance, a law doesn't mean something unbreakable. It means something that, every time it has been tested, has always been observed to be true, and has stood some test of time etc. etc. It doesn't mean one day it won't be overturned, modified, redefined when observations make it necessary.
Theories can be modified. If we saw something fall up, we wouldn't toss out General Relativity. We would simply search for the problem, and rework it. Evolution is the same. If we find something that conflicts with evolution, we will find the problem, and rework the theory.
nowhere in the article does it say he refused to do his job. he simply disagreed with the theory. i can disagree with something, but still do the job that it encompasses.
so people like mindcrime posting stuff like:- Refusing to do a portion of the work that you were hired to do because of that lack of belief certainly makes you unfit." are wrong in using that argument.
"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."
On December 11 2007 09:47 boghat wrote: If you're a biologist and don't believe in evolution you aren't a biologist... evolution is the fundamental central theme to all of biology. This is ridiculous that this is even a topic or an argument.
How can you take all those biology courses to become a biologist and not believe in evolution when every single course requires you to accept evolution? I don't understand why someone would want to do that.
actually no, evolution isnt the fundamental central theme to all of biology.
On December 14 2007 10:52 intotherei wrote: nowhere in the article does it say he refused to do his job. he simply disagreed with the theory. i can disagree with something, but still do the job that it encompasses.
so people like mindcrime posting stuff like:- Refusing to do a portion of the work that you were hired to do because of that lack of belief certainly makes you unfit." are wrong in using that argument.
"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."
edit: and i hope he wins
Lets say you want to create a game. C++ will very likely be your programming language. Now you hire some programmers, and one of them starts programming in Visual Basic. He does his job, but refuses to use C++. How can you not fire him?
I can convince any Christian evolution occurs. I first engage them in conversation then ask a series of questions as follows.
I say "Do you believe in heritable traits determined by DNA?"
Christian replies, "Yes, I look like my mommy."
I say "Do you believe in genetic mutation? For instance down syndrome can be caused by a genetic mutation as can sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and a variety of other medical conditions."
Christian, "Yes, I can see genetic mutation causes a variety of illnesses."
I say "Do you believe certain mutations can have an advantage." For instance, sickle cell anemia reduces succeptability to malaria which is caused by a genetic mutation.
Christian, "Yes, this is well documented."
I say "Do you believe certain heritable traits increase the chances an animal will mate? For instance, the biggest ape in a tribe gets to mate with all the females while other apes do not."
Christian "Yes, I saw that on the discovery channel."
I ask "will this influence the gene pool of the monkey population?"
Christian "Ummm... I think so."
I reply "The answer is yes, obviously."
Christian "Ok, I agree."
I say "so in summary, you believe mutable heritable traits can change the genetic distribution of a population and these mutations may have a selective advantage?
Christian "Ummm..."
I say "You just admitted to all these points."
Christian "No I didn't."
I say, "well... you believe in evolution. Evolution is defined as "the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift. "
On December 11 2007 05:45 lugggy wrote: It would be like a physicist claiming there is actually no gravitational force to his boss.
well as long as you reduce the gravitational force to the higgs particle and you can find this particle (LHC wohooo), i see this as perfectly fine. of course gravity would still exist. it just is not an arbitrary force anymore, but rather an exchange of particles.
I believe that the biases that would be in place due to the lack of belief in evolution could have negatively impaired the work of the scientist. For instance, as an atheist, could I still give a good sermon at a church? That is certainly possible, but the fact that I don't believe in God might cause me to have certain biases that would come through in the final works.
Working in microbiology, you have to associate the rapid population changes with something. The biases of the individual mean he probably shouldn't have been hired in the first place.
30 Muslim workers fired for praying on job at Dell
[...]
Big employers in the Nashville area have responded in drastically different ways to their Muslim employees' requests to slip away from their workstations for about five minutes to pray.
For example, Whirlpool Corp. chose last year to take a similar dispute before a federal jury, which agreed with the company that the employees' sunset-prayer request created an undue hardship on the La Vergne plant's production schedule.
According to leaders of Nashville's Somali community, Dell has been one of several area employers with strong histories of accommodating Muslim workers.
But that arrangement apparently came to an abrupt halt in February, with the firing of 30 workers. They were employed by Spherion, a labor agency that provides workers for Dell's Nashville operations, according to David Perez, the compliance officer for the Metro Human Relations Commission.[...]
On December 11 2007 09:47 boghat wrote: If you're a biologist and don't believe in evolution you aren't a biologist... evolution is the fundamental central theme to all of biology. This is ridiculous that this is even a topic or an argument.
How can you take all those biology courses to become a biologist and not believe in evolution when every single course requires you to accept evolution? I don't understand why someone would want to do that.
actually no, evolution isnt the fundamental central theme to all of biology.
the central dogma of biology is:
dna -> rna -> protein
Nice textbook quote, -_- , I'm not sure if there is any official position, but evolution seems more fundamental than that.
Newton was wrong; but we still use his equations because they are so close to being correct that it doesn't matter.
Again, Newton wasn't "wrong". His equations are perfectly valid in normal situations. Einstein more provided an "exceptions to the rule" than anything else. To say Newtonian theory was "wrong" is incorrect. It was just incomplete. The basic equations were sound.
In the case of evolution, there may be elements missing. But the underlying idea will probably never be overturned.
Well, it seems that we agree with each other. We're just playing with words. Although I think my word usage is more accurate, but whatever ;p.
Hey everyone, due to the fact that I'm not allowed to post religious stuff on this forum anymore I've decided to set up a Christian forum of my own - [i suck dicks for money] - for those of us who are interested in continuing discussions about religion.
If you intend to join then it would be good to post an introduction too in the introductions thread.
Sorry that this is a self-promoting bump but I think it's a shame that religious topics aren't allowed here as TL's readership generally has very good debates on the matter. Cheers, this and one other post are the only ones I will make on the matter.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Kennigit/religion.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m69/cryssie_2006/jesus.gif)
At least I do. 
![[image loading]](http://goodshow.net/archives/noodledoodle_bg3b.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h246/madplo/coconut9jw.jpg)
