is it ok to fire a biologist for not believing in evolution?

from yahoo

Christian biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

By Jason Szep Mon Dec 10, 11:25 AM ET

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)

That's fucked up. You have to involve it a lot in your studies as a biologist, but you don't have to believe in it personally.
It's like religion - a few of us have been subjected to religious studies as young children, but that's not to say we have to believe in it as we get older.

To fire him because he does not believe in evolution is wrong. To fire him for not working from the assumption that evolution is the theory with the most amount of supporting evidence when he is working on a biological study is just plain sensible. I can't go into McDonald's and say that for religious reasons I cannot handle process or transactions involving meat products because they are only required to make reasonable accommodations. Not being willing to work with the theory you are studying is not a reasonable accommodation.

Science doesn't care what you believe, however if a specific study involves the evolution of biological functions, and you state that your beliefs are contrary to the prevailing theory without scientific evidence, then your usefulness in the study is at an end.

It is the one thing creationists do not bring the the intelligent design idea, science. That is why it is not a theory, just an idea.

Yup.

If you aren't prepared to accept empirical evidence, you shouldn't be analyzing it for a living.

its still a theory which takes a leap of faith

natural selection and adaption is far from a frog turning into a turtle

Well yes, it is a theory but there are different kinds of theories.

For example, the theory of evolution and natural selection is a theory because, despite the large bodies of evidence developed over the last century or two, we cannot observe macro evolution in action. In science it is a theory unless it can be observed and reproduced.

Another type of theory is saying that the sky is blue because it reflects the ocean.

While the first type of theory is not fact in the eyes of science, enough observable evidence has presented itself to build off of. If someone disproves the theory you will have to correct the theory, but if your initial observations are strong youseldom have to rewrite the whole book.

With the second kind of theory the scientific method has not been applied and you often rewrite the whole book. Intelligent design is the second type of theory. Observation and reproduction have not come into play with intelligent design theories. A scientist, specifically a biologist, should be aware of that and, regardless of what he or she believes, should be able to work with the theory that has supporting evidence even if they believe it to be wrong. It you believe evolutionary theory is incorrect, they you form a competing theory and test it. You don't ignore the theory you don't like, the evidence you don't like and call it a competing theory.

And frogs don't turn into turtles. Or at least that is not part of evolutionary theory.

he doesnt have to believe it, but he does have to teach it, credibly (ie not teaching it in a way that implies its BS or would sway the students against it) and according to the curriculum. personally i think that atheists would be the best religion teachers, as they would teach fairly all aspects of all religions and let the students make their own decisions - so obviously i dont believe one has to believe what one is teaching, as long as they teach it to the best of their ability.

It's a common Christian-whackjob tactic to equate a scientific theory with a fairy tale in terms of validity, and demand equal treatment to both.

sigh ,, yup the intelligent design debate all over again

science, by definition, is the collection of data, study of evidence and making/proving/disproving theories based on that evidence. on that basis, in science classes only the theories with evidence (ie evolution) should be taught, while those without evidence (ie ID) should not. those that believe in intelligent design can teach their children it themselves if its that important to them.

its fair enough that they want their beliefs to get equal treatment to others, but you shouldnt teach pseudoscience in a science class, simple as that.

if these creationists stopped preaching and took the time to look for facts and evidence then maybe us evolutionists might at least have a wee bit of respect for them

pfft. dont you know anything? look around you, and see the proof of gods will everywhere. ID is its own evidence, infidel.