Nathaniel Abraham — Competence Without Belief?

_{William Dembski

December 7, 2007

Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The case of Nathaniel Abraham — a biologist who does not “believe” in evolution, got fired for it, and is now suing his erstwhile employer — is getting some play in the press (see Boston Globe and Chronicle of Higher Education). The question this raises is whether it is legitimate to fire someone who knows all that he needs to know about evolution to successfully practice his discipline but still does not believe in evolution. More generally, to be a member of the guild, do you have to believe something that you are capable of successfully applying? One of the commenters at the Chronicle of Higher Education remarked that you can’t continue to employ a mathematician who believes 1 plus 1 equals 3. But what if the mathematician says, “In fact, I believe 1 plus 1 equals 3, but I realize that most of you think it equals 2, and I know why you think that, so, to keep peace in the family, I’ll just play along”? It seems that BELIEF and COMPETENCE are two separate things — one can be competent in handling an idea without believing in it.

Compare the case of Nathaniel Abraham with the case of a high school student reported a long time ago here.

Comments

StephenB [63], sorry if I seemed to be evading Joseph's [56] question. He's just such a hostile character. First [6] he points to a "Creation Model of Evolution" which seems to be entirely his coinage. Then [26] he mocks me for finding the name strange, even though nobody else on the planet seems to use it. The link he posted seems essentially to repeat standard creationist arguments about "kinds" (baramin). He lays out a more substantive argument in [56], that there are different meanings to evolution. No argument here, though I don't know what that has to do with anything. As it happens, I disagree with what Joseph says on his blog, that "any and all evidences for evolution [in a narrow sense] are always used as evidence for evolution [in the broadest possible sense of a 'Blind watchmaker' thesis]." It would take a while to explain the difference, but Joseph doesn't seem to believe in evolution in at least some of the narrower senses either (i.e., common descent), so I'm not sure what good it would do. What he seems to be arguing, if I can read through the anger, the repetition, and the idiosyncratic vocabulary, is that Abraham may have been asked to believe in this "'Blind watchmaker' thesis" view of evolution. But there's no evidence of that. Re Kevin Trudeau: I'm sure some of his advice is fine, as it seems to be folk wisdom. Some is obviously dangerous hogwash, such as that cancer is not caused by the sun but by sunblock. FWIW, Joseph, I appreciate your service too.getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

BA77, I don't get it. Mutations are good for E.coli. They help it resist antibiotics. That's shown by the paper. We don't fight mutations in E. coli because we want to help it; we fight mutations in E. coli because we want to fight it. In fact, as the paper argues, the bacteria sets the stage for beneficial mutations under certain conditions.getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

getawitness-- the theory has never been accepted by the geological community. BUT if someone should conclusively demonstrate they understand what the consensus of the formation of fossil fuel happens to be -- and the reasoning behind the consensus --but then confesses to doubting it, should he be run from the room/forbidden to teach etc.?tribune7_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

GAW, The truth is that you are blatantly ignoring the truth as you have done repeatedly in the past. Sometimes, you have used the same arguments over and over and have been soundly refuted many times, by different IDists, and yet you refuse to learn anything about ID. I guess, the only reason why the moderators allow you to get away with this, is because you provide a counterpoint to debate against. But as for myself I feel it hampers more detailed analysis of specific lines of inquiry.bornagain77_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

GAW, Admit you are a NA^ZI pig?bornagain77_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

Joseph, that was never the point of the cite. In fact, I wasn't talking to you. I was answering a specific question from BA77, leading him promptly to read the paper exactly backwards. Meanwhile you continue badgering me but seem to have missed the point that I was not answering your question. tribune7, apologies for the typo. Keyboard slip.getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

tribuney, Wow. I read Gold's paper "The deep, hot biosphere" in PNAS back in 1992. It was very interesting, as I recall, suggesting that life on earth may have originated in the deep (perhaps at ocean vents) rather than in shallow pools. I had forgotten that that paper also argued against a biogenic origin for petroleum. But as I understand it, such theories about petroleum are pretty much abandoned by now in the geological community.getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Gee GAW the way you equivocate is amazing! Please tell us what that finding has to do with all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via culled genetic accidents? Either do that or admit it doesn't.Joseph_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

BA77, You're reading it backwards. From the point of view of E. coli, mutations are a good thing because that's how E. coli evolves resistance to synthetic antibiotics. The authors are arguing that repressing mutations in E. coli may keep them from gaining that power.getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

Joseph, the link in comment 61 argues but does not demonstrate this. In fact, it says that mutations conferring resistance inevitably lead to loss of function with loss of a regulatory protein. The paper I linked to shows how this is actually beneficial and not, as your link says, a loss of function:
bacteria play an active role in the mutation of their own genomes by inducing the production of proteins that facilitate mutation, including Pol IV and Pol V, as has been suggested with other forms of mutation [7–15]. In turn, this suggests that inhibition of these proteins, or the prevention of their derepression by inhibition of LexA cleavage, with suitably designed drugs, might represent a fundamentally new approach to combating the emerging threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
I was responding to a request from BA77 for a biological finding using Darwinian paradigms. This is such a finding.getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

getawitness, As the link in comment 61 demonstrates antibiotic resistance and the theory of evolution are not connected. But thank you for demonstrating you can ignore reality with the best of them.Joseph_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

getawitness, Inhibition of Mutation and Combating the Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance. Hmmm, mutations are a bad thing, mutations are a bad thing... Dang, Dang, Getawitness, just where have I heard this before? where, where, where have I heard this before??? Oh yeah, Dr. Behe, and a quite a few other IDists, have pointed out that mutations are always a negative thing and no positive mutations have ever been found in any living organisms that have built any meaningful complexity...they (mutations) always end up breaking something! But thats a damnable heresy getawitness,,,for according to your superior logic,,, mutations are the exclusive right of the "evolution club" and no one else (especially IDists) is allowed to draw any meaningful inferences from them. We better go stop Dr. Behe right now from studying how mutations affect organisms getawitness, since he is clearly infringing on some evolutionary trademark right or something, because as you have you have clearly shown me now (How could I have been so blind?), any work in inhibiting mutations is a supreme triumph of neo-Darwian thought If that is your proof of how almighty neo-darwinian thought allowed a stunning breakthrough in biology Getawitness, It is weak, pathetic, complete and utter garbage! Shoot, how in the world does finding a way to stop mutations remain a exclusive right to the neo-Darwinian paradigm? Especially, when IDists have been harping on the fact that mutations are negative for many years now? If he found a way to increase mutations in the bacteria and drive it over the brink into error catastrophe (Genetic Meltdown) would that be a neo-Darwinian thought too? Shoot getawitness that whole line of thinking fits much more easily into the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del of the ID camp, for it states right off the bat that mutations are a bad thing and never ever BS's anybody otherwise, as your beloved fallacy does.! The point being, is that it is common knowledge that deleterious mutations are what is conferring antibiotic resistance to bacteria, and owes as much right to "creationists clearly pointing this fact out for years" than it does to the fact that someone who happened to be an "evolutionist" used this fact to develop a mutation-inhibiting . Please Go back to the drawing board and find anther stunning breakthrough for neo-Darwinian thought, for I am severely unimpressed with your present example.bornagain77_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

Just curious about the alternative explanation among the YECs these days. Abiogenic petroleum origin is not necessarily a YEC position. In fact, it's most prominent proponent is the late Thomas Gold who was one of the developers of the steady-state theory of the universe.tribune7_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

What about a religion teacher? Could someone who doesn't belong to a certain religion be qualified and do well teaching about it? If not, I guess all world religion teachers should find new jobs.eddiehaskell_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

This oil man thinks it came from the flood? Or that it's not organic at all? Just curious about the alternative explanation among the YECs these days.getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

tribute7, interesting example. One of the best oil men I know is a YEC who always scoffs at these "millions of years." ;-)BarryA_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

1+1=3 is not a good analogy at all. A better one might be I understand that there is a strong consensus that oil comes from the fossilized remains of plants and animals but I think it might be an abiogenic process. Would a knowledgeable person thinking outside the box be rejected for this reason? Maybe in today's academia. Should a knowledgeable person thinking outside the box be rejected for this reason? Not in a organization that welcomes free inquiry.tribune7_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

bornagain77,
Can you please specify one significant breakthrough, out of that broad field of research he alluded too, that was led by the Darwinian heuristic and give the exact details of how Darwinian thought provided the insight into the breakthrough?
Let me give a very recent one, the first you mentioned: antibiotic resistance. Now, it's true that much antibiotic resistance seems to come from acquiring genes from other bacteria. There's no reason why this shouldn't be so, given how efficient such exchanges are compared to mutation. But bacteria also develop resistance to synthetic antibiotics for which there's no available gene to confer resistance. Where did the resistance come from? Yes, that old saw, mutation. The Romesburg lab at Scripps Research Institute is using Darwinian principles to model how mutation creates resistance to synthetic antibiotics in E. coli and is developing ways to combat resistance by inhibiting mutation. See Cirz RT, Chin JK, Andes DR, de Crécy-Lagard V, Craig WA, et al. (2005) Inhibition of Mutation and Combating the Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance. PLoS Biology 3(6): e176 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030176 Their first paragraph reads:
The worldwide emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria threatens to undo the dramatic advances in human health that were ushered in with the discovery of these drugs in the mid-1900s. Today, resistance has rendered most of the original antibiotics obsolete for many infections, mandating an increased reliance on synthetic drugs. However, bacteria also evolve resistance to these drugs, typically by acquiring chromosomal mutations [1–6]. Within the classical paradigm that mutations are the inevitable consequence of replicating a large genome with polymerases of finite fidelity, resistance- conferring mutations are unavoidable. However, recent evidence suggests that bacteria may play a more active role in the mutation of their own genomes in response to at least some DNA-damaging agents by inducing proteins that actually promote mutation [7–15]. If the acquisition of antibiotic resistance-conferring mutations also requires the induction of these proteins, then their inhibition would represent a novel approach to combating the growing problem of drug resistance.
getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

Specs justification for firing Abrahamson is similar to AT&T’s justification for firing the employee in the case I mentioned above. AT&T said, essentially, that they were justified in firing the employee because he was not a team player.
Actually Barry that is not what I said, evidenced simply by the fact that I did not even use the word team. You have probably misread my use of the word 'organization'. So, let me try again and perhaps make it a bit more clear. Let me start by saying that, based on the information you have shared, I am in complete agreement with you regarding the AT&T case. When I read the particulars, I just rolled my eyes at AT&T's stupidity. So, yes, merely holding a belief is not grounds for termination. "Not being a team player" is hopelessly imprecise and virtually meaningless. We have all worked with people we would apply that term to. Some create annoyance, but don't affect the functioning of the organization. Some create minor difficulties that causes some extra work to be done, but it is not an onerous burden. And some are so disruptive that they severely hamper productivity and/or create a hostile work environment. (Let me state here that disruptive should not be interpreted as a reflection on personality. I've had some employees that were absolute sweethearts, but for other reasons were disruptive to the organization.) If Abraham falls into this latter class, then I think Wood Hole has grounds for termination. For example, it has been said, and I am assuming it true, that Abraham asked to have his work restructured such that he did not have to do work related to the evolutionary aspect of the project. If it was not possible to create a full job tour to accomodate this request, or the accomodation creates an onerous burden on the functioning of the organization, then I think the company may have grounds for termination. No? That said, my understanding is derived from my experience with the Americans with Disabilities Act. And, I think I am safe in assuming that, at this time, the US Government doesn't consider religious belief a disability.specs_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

getawitness: You seem to be evading Joseph's larger point. neo-Darwinists purposely define things in murky, generic terms, so they can leave themselves wiggle room when confronted with unassailable facts. They do the same thing with the word, "nature." Darwinists define a natural process as anything that occurs "in nature." That way they can subsume the term "agency" into a larger, indeterminate unbrella and pretend that intellectual innovation is just one of many natural phenomena--that there is nothing distinct or remarkable about it. You don't hear them using precise terms like law, chance, or intelligent agency. If they did, a rational discussion would follow--something they will avoid at all costs. Besides, I think you are being a little hard on poor old Kevin Trudeau. After all, according to your relativism, he has his "truth," and you have your "truth." I don't think you should be so ingratious to one who is simply looking at the world through his own moral lens. Sure, his moral code is different that yours, but so what? It works for him. Which moral code did he break? You told me that there is no such thing as objective morality. What is this sudden surge of moral objectivism that would prompt you to use such linguistic formulations as "huckster" as "criminal"---tsk tsk. How selective our moral relativism can be.StephenB_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Getawitness: Philip Skell states: Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. Can you please specify one significant breakthrough, out of that broad field of research he alluded too, that was led by the Darwinian heuristic and give the exact details of how Darwinian thought provided the insight into the breakthrough?bornagain77_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

It guides animal models for disease and for drug development;- gaw
Nonsense- how can it if we can't account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed? That we find genetic similarities throughout the kingdoms can also be evidence for a common design or convergence. And again saying "evolution" just proves equivocation. IOW that inkling is all but gone. I know you aren't going to like the following because it is on a Creationist's site but to ignore the facts just proves my point- that you will twist anything to try to make a point: Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? And seeing that the theory is void of predictive power, it is pretty obvious it is useless.Joseph_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Mudslinging? Anyway: there are two major statements in the quote. The first one, represented by the first paragraph, I'd agree with. It was said better by Gould and Lewontin in their famous "Spandrels" paper. Of course Darwinian explanations are often too -- well, I'd say sweeping rather than supple, and I'd say "adaptive" rather than "Darwinian," but yeah, more or less, I don't have a problem with that. Any narrative explanation of complex phenomena is likely to be oversimplifying, just as any laboratory model of the natural world simplifies it as part of the experimental design. The second statement, represented by the second paragraph, I'd say is demonstrably false. The evidence is that it's used as a heuristic by experimental biologists all the time. They find it fruitful for their work, or else they wouldn't use it. It guides animal models for disease and for drug development; it's behind proteomics and genomics and gene expression profiling; etc. I know dozens of experimental biologists, biochemists, bioinformatics experts, structural biologists, pharmacologists, and molecular biologists who use evolution as a productive heuristic in their work -- and I don't know that many people. Skell is simply wrong.getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

to getawitness, 1- Skell has done valid research. 2- No one has ever shown the theory of evolution to be of any merit concerning research- how can it be? No one can account for the anatomical or physiological differences observed. 3- Kevin Trudeau's stuff works. That is at least the stuff I have tried. There are many other testimonials to that fact. 4- The FTC, IMHO, is criminal for allowing what they do to go on. And seeing they are the ones after Kevin your point is moot. What Kevin says actually works but you have to try it. So how about it gaw- try demonstrating that the theory of evolution is relevant to any research field. Do that and you may save an the inkling of credibility you have left. Also what I posted about equivocation and evolution is a fact. That you try to disparage those facts just demonstrates how close-minded you are. However I digress- could you please provide ONE prediction from the theory of evolution that is based on "culled genetic accidents"? If you cannot then you should realize why it is useless for research.Joseph_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

getawitness, Is the following statement true or false? Please answer exactly why you believe it is true or false, with evidence, instead of your usual mud slinging? "Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology." Philip Skellbornagain77_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

getawitness, I have to admit it always annoys me when people like you claim that things such as chemistry or genetics are not related evolution (thats only biology right?). It seems that when people get in these binds they just use that as a scapegoat, when in reality these fields are closly linked, how do you explain the origin of life from a purely biology standpoint and avoid chemistry? Since other people in the NAS trah his points of view that means it must be false because people of the same status disagree? Let me give you an example by analogy If we were to take a survey of who is a better guitarist Justin King or the guy from Good Charolate. A larger part of society would probably say the guitarist from Good Charolate is better, I would say hell no, Justin King is an amazing Guitarist. Most people don't know Justin King, and would vote against him for popy Good Charolate. People who who also don't kow much about guitar might think its too much because they dont understand it. So Just because more people would vote for Good Charolate does that make him better? Just for fun here is a link to watch him! http://youtube.com/watch?v=cRRF_M2T-vYgore_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

I read the article and your blog. Phil Skell doesn't impress me. He's a chemist, not a biologist or a biochemist, and his views on evolution have been roundly trashed by other NAS members who are actually in the relevant fields. The credibility of your own blog was badly damaged when it promoted noted huckster and criminal Kevin Trudeau.getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

getawitness, Please get-a-clue. There is a HUGE difference between "evolution" meaning the change in allele frequency over time within a population and the theory of evolution which states all of life's diversity arose from some unknown populations of single-celled organisms via culled genetic accidents. And yes, according to the theory ALL mutaions are genetic accidents. I suggest you go back to comment #20 and read the article Gil linked to (not the podcast). See also: Equivocation and Evolution Then you ask:
What kind of a creationist would want to work in that lab anyway?
One who realizes the theory is bogus and therefore not required for the type of research being conducted.Joseph_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Joseph, I am glad you are the open minded person that you are, and I wish more people could be that way. To be honest, I am pretty stubborn and always thought YEC was a joke. As random as it is after getting in another online debate about Global Warming with some dude who claims to know alot about geology and tell him I had 3 geology professors claim global warming is a joke (even had a test question on it) I realized that NASA has some things on their website infavor of it, so I feel open to it now, and I also feel that the beauty of science is that it should always be open to new suggestions. With this said, I may look up Dr. Russel Humphrey, and read his book if he has one. My main tiff with YEC is they do not believe in the big bang. I think that could possibly some of the best evidence of a creator! Have you checked out any books by Dr. Hugh Ross (he is an oec astronomer)? Maybe we could make a trade or something! As for everyone else I know this is pretty off topic, sorry for the interuption I hate to be "that dude"gore_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

getawitness asks whether it would make a difference if Abraham has asked to be excused from the "evolutionary aspects" of the job, whatever that means. It depends. If (1) the "evolutionary aspects" of the job (again, whatever that means) were an essential element of the job; and (2) it was not possible for Woods Hole to accomodate Abraham's sincerely held religious belief that prohibited him from performing this essential element of the job, this would necessarily mean that Abraham could not perform an essential element of the job. He has no right to a job, an essential element of which he cannot perform. Imagine an Orthodox Jew hired to butcher hogs. If the employee says "I'm not allowed to touch hogs" he obviously cannot perform an (indeed, "the") essential element of the job and there is no way the employer can make a reasonable accomodation to the employee's belief. Again, this is all speculation. I am certainly not going to accept on its face Woods Hole's self-serving assertion that (1) the "evolutionary aspects" of the job were essential to it; or (2) that Abraham refused to perform within the evolutionary paradigm.BarryA_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply