All the information you get before you even start, projects you would be working on, things like that.

what is the best way to disprove the issue

you do the work

and find the

evidence to prove it wrong

and that just might be

the real issue here

From my point of view this isn’t even a religious question. This question is entirely a legal matter.

I don’t know the details of the case but here’s how I would personally handle it.

Potential Scenario #1: The actual job performance and duties don’t require a belief in evolution, but rather only require basic fundamentals of biology which the man was supposedly knowledgeable of.

In this case, the company had no right to fire him. His disbelief in evolution was simply not important to his job performance and therefore would not constitute a problem or damage to the company.

Potential Scenario #2: The actual job performance and duties DO require an understanding of the principles of evolution. Perhaps this was part of the job, or the man would be scientific writing papers addressing these issues.

In this case, to begin with, the man had no business applying for such a position in the first place if he doesn’t believe in the work that he would be required to do. The company would certainly be within their rights to fire him as being ‘incompetent’ for the job at hand.

To me, these are the criteria.

In scenario #1, I would award the man his modest $500,000 and demand that the company keep him on.

In scenario #2, I would fine the man his own choice of penalty (namely the $500,000) and charge him with fraud and conspiracy to corrupt the work of science in the name of his religion.

Which scenario fits the bill I don’t know.

In truth, I would spell these things out to the Gentleman (and the company) in question first and give him the choice on whether or not he would like to proceed. In this way if scenario #2 is correct, all he would have to do is bow out gracefully and look for another job. If he felt confident that his scenario is indeed #1 he could continue to pursue his lawsuit. At that point the company might do well to offer an out-of-court settlement and keep the thing out of the courts altogether.

I’m not a mean person, honest.

I believe in being fair. However, a religious person who has religious agendas and applies for work as a research scientist when his real goals are to denounce the science is totally unacceptable. That’s fraud and should not be tolerated.

So tell me, what is it like having a humorectomy???

Jeez, dude, lighten up. A little playful hyperbole ain't gonna kill you....

Abracadabra, that's really the level-headed way of thinking about this matter. We probably don't have all of the facts about the situation and the article is probably spun to elicit an emotional response. I agree that whether or not he was technically capable of performing his duties, he would probably be happier working for a company that is more ideologically compatible with his beliefs.

it still comes down to if he did his assigned work



how many defense attorneys

think their client is guilty

and take the case anyway

does that mean the client

should not have to pay

the attorney

again even if he is happier elsewhere

that is his decision to make

and if he performed his duties

he wins

This IS the crux of the legal matter, but I don't think it's an easy distinction to make. One of the duties of research is to make inferences and draw conclusions from the facts that one has observed. If his employer had reason to believe that he would not be making completely rational inferences, they would have grounds for dismissal. This isn't like a labour job where you can ask whether or not the work got done. There will be a lot of scrutiny into whether or not he completed the work in the objective manner that was asked of him.

Thanks invisible, I had a duh moment there. Got the V8 slap to the forehead while I was pouring more coffee.

Lex,

no that is not correct

the research facility

is doing research

if they only employ those that

give the findings they want

then why do the research

that is like a drug company

firing their research guy cause

they informed them their drug is flawed

I disagree.

Religion itself does not suppose any one particular discipline.

Nor does religion require a consensus of its definitive properties.

That religion and biology are distinct disciplines and observations of, by, and through man makes them congruent but not oxymorons.

They both inclide beliefs and faith to believe in their viability and that distinction preclude their being oxymoronic as well.

Assumptions preclude objectivity.

That is my perspective, but I don't expect consensus in adoption of my perspective, either.

I hope that helps you understand the context of my remarks in their original intent to define the case mentioned as relevant to the topic itself and not as a generalization being expressed overall.

This is not precisely the case. Bear in mind that this is an emotionally charged issue across both the scientific and religious industries, so it's tricky for anybody to remain completely objective.

My opinion on the matter, though, is that there is a sufficient weight of evidence in favour of evolution that a researcher stating a pre-existing bias against evolution is jeopardizing his objectivity. It is also possible that the research being performed accepts evolution as a premise and that failure to recognize evolution could taint the credibility of one's conclusions. (The research does not necessarily need to be for/against evolution. It might just be, "We're trying to research the evolutionary origins of this biological feature." Evolution is assumed in this case and what is being researched is the biological feature and its origin.)

A man can have a job playing Santa or the Easter Bunny and he believes in them, that's OK, silly but OK.

But having a job that requires you except biology facts but not believe in those facts, that's crazy talk.

so no response from

the defense attorney post

i find that interesting

but it still goes back to

did he do his work assignments

we can debate forever

with out this bit of info

it is irrelevant

if he did the work

he wins

you know what the funny thing is

maybe creationism

bread evolution

says created in seven days

but how long is seven day

is not time a speculation

does it not also say

a second is as a day

and a day as a second

would not God have to obey his own laws

thus to create man

may have taken how many seconds in a day x that into years

is it not logical that this could be a possibility

after all if God did not obey his own laws of science

then God would be a hypocrite would he not

just a thought

but hey what do i know

Obviously we are not sure of all that might be involved in this case but, unlike homosexuals, the Civil rights act protects some people from discrimination by prohibiting this action based on race, color, RELIGION, sex or national origin.

In many states there is 'at will' employment. Depending on the size of the company and its incorporation charter, the number of employees and such, one can be hired, fired or can quit without, too much, justification required. EXCEPT for those ‘specifically’ covered under the Civil Rights Act, as in the case of religious discrimination.

If this man has an actual case, than he only need submit a complaint to the EEOC, which was set up in conjunction with the Civil rights act, for the purpose of oversight to the code. Whenever there is a secondary claim of “lawsuit”, one must wonder why the EEOC failed to ‘protect’ those rights; OR did they?



So it seems the commission found it valid that this person could not function up to the standards necessary. It is his right to pursue other avenues, of course.

I would like to point out at this time, for the GLBT, there is no option available to seek repayment for severe economic losses, injured reputation, emotional pain and suffering and mental anguish. For them there is no law that phrohibits ANY BUSINESS from firing "at will" for being gay, lesbian, or transgender.

For them there is only the Christian fundamentalist faction that do not want to submit to the same hiring practices as the rest of America. I wonder if Mr. Abraham would look upon a Gay man (or woman) as his equal, and work confidently and cohesively with that person as a peer at the University in which he works.

Of course I don’t expect, at that university, that this would ever happen. But he expects a lot better consideration for apparently no other reason except his belief. (Is that not a “special” privilege?) This is what has been coined by the Christian fundamentalists when referring to the modification the GLBT seek to make to the C.R. Act.


The Civil rights act originated to protect minorities – race (African Americans), sex (women), national origin, (Irish, Polish… and now Hispanics)and handicap. But the number of people who hold to a faith are certainly not a minority – so, consider who the religious factions were, that really required such protection? I won’t go into that here.

I do find this kind of thing most disturbing. I don’t believe that one’s religion, necessarily has to conflict with any job that person chooses. I am offended by any prejudice at any level and what is most disconcerting is the thought that open minded and intelligent people might actually be forcing others into a little square box full of limitations. (look at where this ‘scientist’ is working now? But perhaps he felt ‘forced’ into a more limited role – who knows!

But as I said, there are laws already in place to protect this person, and if those laws have been broken at least this person’s reputation can be saved and so might his ability to keep his open and scientific mind, if that was ever his concern. For that I am happy, for he does have options. On the other hand, if this person was incapable of completing scientific tasks that were not consistent with his religious views – then is it really discrimination?

It's not an oxymoron. Yes you can if one is a theist evolutionist. I happen to be a theist evolutionist.

LadyV - You can be whatever you want to be - but please refrain from reverting to fundamentalism!